131–140 of 206 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
M1 to M1+ would be like the release of the next year edition of a car. M1 to M2 would be like the release of the next generation of a car. A lot of people get hyped up for the release of the next generation of a car.
Major car models are introduced every ~6 years with refreshes at 3 years.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They’re on the same process node, and only increased frequency a bit. It's going from N5 to N5P, chosen by Apple over N4. > But no one [expects] that from Intel or AMD every year anymore. That's not accurate, a minor performance upgrade after almost 2 years is the exact thing Intel has gotten a lot of flack for in recent years. The fact that people are willing to defend it is really exclusive to Apple and their unb…
>It's going from N5 to N5P, chosen by Apple over N4. Any info as to why?
N4 increases the number of EUV layers so the main improvements should be in cost and yield which would have been interesting to Apple, but N5P hit volume manufacturing earlier allowing Apple to ship the M2 earlier and with more capacity.
Waiting for N3 would have offered a considerable performance and efficiency boost but that’d realistically have delayed M2 to the first half of 2023.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s quite an exaggeration - many states disallow or severely limit non-competes, and in many of the states that allow them, they are often unenforced, or easy to get around. So yeah - some people in some parts of the country are locked behind non-competes (if they aren’t willing to move), but it’s hardly everyone.
That is a gross exaggeration of the situation. California has a total ban on non-competes. A very small handful of other states put restrictions on non-competes, but even those generally allow non-competition agreements if time limited, and the employee makes over ~$100k. It’s widely accepted that prohibiting non-competes has been a significant factor in the tech industry success in California. As one example, it is…
But yes, I wish all states would just ban them outright. Or at least make them require compensation. If an employee is important enough to require a non-compete, then they are important enough to pay during the non-compete time period.
Does CA also ban them as part of an acquisition? I've seen them as part of the sale so everyone doesn't quit the day after the acquisition and start a competitor.
Thanks to being based on their phone chips Apple came out of the gate with the M1 and cleaned everyone’s clock on performance-per-watt while putting in good to great numbers in general (as a CPU). But their rate of improvement on the A series has been slowing on general tasks. They’re on the same process node, and only increased frequency a bit. Is it really that surprising that performance didn’t take a massive jump…
> But no one exits that from Intel or AMD every year anymore. I've been hearing that since Skylake, at every single processor generation that the gains are too modest. That's more than a decade at this point.
There's a lot of claims of poached talent in the article, basically claiming [paraphrasing] "Apple, maintaining their stressful work env and not paying to shore that up lost some rockstars" How true is this? If they're on the money it's an excellent example of a talent retention miss leading to a demonstrable mediocrity in delivery.
And while Apple isn't the max payer in SV, I'm sure they pay fine compared to other big tech. The issue is, chips are big right now and no existing big tech can compete compensation wise with shares in a growth chip startup. With VC drying up, I expect this to change back in Apple (and other big techs) favor.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a really great article from Anandtech with benchmarks and analysis, it explained a lot of things. > The overall performance gains are quite disappointing when you factor in the raw cost increase that comes with this new M2 and the fact that it has been nearly 2 years since the M1’s introduction. Also the logic of article in the title is little weird to me. M1 was introduced in the same year as A14, they use t…
Phones are the flagship product. They will always get the latest and greatest first, including cores, die shrinks, etc etc.
If they were a CPU “arms dealer” like Intel or AMD it’d matter more I think.
Why does the biggest and richest company in the world ever have to suffer from talent leaving because they don’t get paid enough? It just doesn’t make any sense.
Why would compensation be the decisive factor for top talent in a highly compensated field? They have probably already made enough money that they don't have to work for living, and they are probably genuinely interested in their work because they made it to the top. Apple processors are already in the market, so the most interesting work is done, and it may be time to start looking for new challenges.
That aside once people have kids the sky is the limit for giving them the "best life possible." Nanny, private tutors, private schools (and/or a house in Cupertino since it's Apple), college funds, house with good amenities nearby, etc. I probably missed some costs in there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Often unreported, Apple also has $100B in debt. Google and Microsoft have a better net cash and cash equivalents position than Apple. https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/AAPL/apple/long-te...
Getting debt is the only way they could bring their cash home to avoid tax.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Things don't become the "est" anything by being wasteful.
My dad used to tell a story when as a kid he worked at a gas station. Guy shows up with a Ferrari, asks for a full tank, pays with a large note and my dad asks him to keep the change. The guy replied - boy, I got a lot of money Really, a lot. You know how I got them? I never gave anything away for free. Hand that change over.