301–310 of 509 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah but at least you can charge with any of them. Even when you find a Lightning cable, there's a good chance it won't charge for whatever bs reason. That's the only thing I care about. Syncing is over wifi anyway.
You have a lot more faith in random USB-C cables than I've experienced in practice.
Everyone in this thread is arguing about operating systems and their mobile OS preference... why? The interesting point here, which is corroborated by different sources than just TFA, is that Apple's silicon is 1-2 generations ahead of everyone else. Whether you like iPhone or Android, I think we should all agree that's a bad situation for the world to be in. Apple's advantage in mobile CPUs is coming at a time when…
Does Apple really have some secret sauce, or are they just consistently first in line for TSMC's latest process? Not saying that's better or worse, but it's a very different problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does Apple really have some secret sauce, or are they just consistently first in line for TSMC's latest process? Not saying that's better or worse, but it's a very different problem.
Apple’s secret sauce is their long-term focus, colored strongly by their many awful experiences being held hostage by CPU manufacturers. They’ve re-architected their entire software stack on multiple occasions to deal with manufacturing partners who could no longer keep up. For example, it was a big deal when they moved from IBM/Motorola to Intel, and Macs started getting much faster right away. A decade later and In…
This is the key point. There used to be a lot of chip makers and phone vendors in the Android space (hell, even Sony had their own processors for their early phones), both ARM and the odd non-ARM effort. The way that the Android market has collapsed down to essentially "Qualcomm and Samsung" is what's hurting Android, and Qualcomm, in particular, are the reason that things like support lifecycles are such garbage. Google have been completely disinterested in solving this problem in any way, while Apple have.
Everyone in this thread is arguing about operating systems and their mobile OS preference... why? The interesting point here, which is corroborated by different sources than just TFA, is that Apple's silicon is 1-2 generations ahead of everyone else. Whether you like iPhone or Android, I think we should all agree that's a bad situation for the world to be in. Apple's advantage in mobile CPUs is coming at a time when…
Once upon a time, there were around a dozen fabs competing to make high-end semiconductors. Now it's just TSMC (who sell cutting-edge capacity exclusively to Apple) with Samsung's fabs playing catch-up. And Intel... are you okay back there, Intel? There's isn't much hope on the horizon for more competition when it costs hundreds of billions to build a new next-gen fab, there's a significant chance of process shrinks…
Apple has a track record of bankrolling build-out of cutting edge manufacturing facilities in a weird business loan/prepurchase arrangement where essentially they get stuff 18 months before anyone else would have been able to get it without doing the same thing. Waiting around for businesses to see a market and then a long line of processes necessary to make that a reality slows things down.
When Apple made their first Intel laptop, they got a CPU bin that didn't actually exist for something like another 9 months. If Lenovo had shown up asking for it, they would have been told no, in no small part because Lenovo would have wanted 10x the capacity that Apple needed for those first macbooks. But Apple could handle waiting for what were essentially perfect chips to trickle out of a fab still working on yield.
As Apple has gotten bigger they've had to make their own weather more and more. I have no doubt that if Apple hadn't shown up to TSM with a bag of money that Intel would only be a year or so behind TSM instead of whatever they are right now (which is Really Really Bad)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does Apple really have some secret sauce, or are they just consistently first in line for TSMC's latest process? Not saying that's better or worse, but it's a very different problem.
Apple (and Nvidia) can afford to pay to be first in line for the latest TSMC process. But that alone doesn't explain why Apple's 2.5 year old mid-range offering is faster than the latest and greatest from Samsung.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does Apple really have some secret sauce, or are they just consistently first in line for TSMC's latest process? Not saying that's better or worse, but it's a very different problem.
What a gross trivialization of the chip design process. If all a company had to do was get first in line for TSMC's process, Intel would drop all their fabs and just pay that money to TSMC to beat AMD.
What money? They already paid them. Building fabs has a massive upfront cost that you depreciate for decades. The economics have to make sense for them to move to TSMC
Everyone in this thread is arguing about operating systems and their mobile OS preference... why? The interesting point here, which is corroborated by different sources than just TFA, is that Apple's silicon is 1-2 generations ahead of everyone else. Whether you like iPhone or Android, I think we should all agree that's a bad situation for the world to be in. Apple's advantage in mobile CPUs is coming at a time when…
But sure, it is leaps and bounds ahead of that task no one really cares about.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would rather have a gen1 SE than my current iPhone 12 mini. Had an iPhone 5 before, but AT&T stopped serving data to it. I thought maaybe it'd be ok not having a headphone jack, but nah, this sucks.
Please accept my sympathy. I do understand and soon enough I'll be in the same predicament. Every iOS 15 patch feels like a gift. I seriously don't know what I'm going do when iOS 15 becomes end of life; there aren't any modern phones that have my critical—and arguably reasonable—hardware requirements.
Everyone in this thread is arguing about operating systems and their mobile OS preference... why? The interesting point here, which is corroborated by different sources than just TFA, is that Apple's silicon is 1-2 generations ahead of everyone else. Whether you like iPhone or Android, I think we should all agree that's a bad situation for the world to be in. Apple's advantage in mobile CPUs is coming at a time when…
Once upon a time, there were around a dozen fabs competing to make high-end semiconductors. Now it's just TSMC (who sell cutting-edge capacity exclusively to Apple) with Samsung's fabs playing catch-up. And Intel... are you okay back there, Intel? There's isn't much hope on the horizon for more competition when it costs hundreds of billions to build a new next-gen fab, there's a significant chance of process shrinks…
The main reason is Apple has the profit margins to be able to afford to use large chips with lots of cache and plenty of premium features. Look at the M1 architecture, those chips are monsters. Android OEMs don’t have the margins, so are trapped in a race to the bottom against each other.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I know we are typically against monopolies (pls don’t flame me) but why should we care if it’s not something that’s actually important like food/water/medicine? I don’t see the sense when the government tries to break up a monopoly like Google for being too good at selling online ads, or likewise worrying about some company dominating augmented reality chips. I’d be more interested in making sure that such technology…
> I don’t see the sense when the government tries to break up a monopoly like Google for being too good at selling online ads The problem is that Google isn't "too good" at selling online ads, they're just the most profitable because their monopoly makes it impossible for better competitors to beat them. That means the world is stuck with Google's mediocre/shitty service even though consumers/the market doesn't want…
Isn't it because they became "too good" at search?