Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple Debuts iPhone 16e

apple.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

831–840 of 857 posts

Re: Apple Debuts iPhone 16e

#831

Post by kalleboo »

pzo wrote: post #773
hx8 wrote: post #92

The point here is to replace iPhone 15 which doesn't support Apple Intelligence without raising the lowest price point for an iPhone. Apple has made a bit of a blunder by selling hardware with such limited memory for so long, which gives them a large install base that doesn't support gen-ai tech. Of course, the urgency of upgrading depends on how bullish you are on gen-ai.

I'm not sure if running any local model on smartphones make sense right now for most of the people. I played with many tiny llm models on ollama and only 14b models can feel to be usable - otherwise why not just run any app that do inference in cloud and run SOTA models? Even o4-mini feels more usable than those tiny models on smartphones - apple would have to ship iphones with 24GB RAM but inference would still be s…

> I'm not sure if running any local model on smartphones make sense right now for most of the people

It probably makes sense for simpler tasks like summarizing text messages/email that you might not necessarily want to send off to a third party that has a "move fast and break things" approach to data privacy

Re: Apple Debuts iPhone 16e

#832

Post by makeitdouble »

amazingman wrote: post #819
makeitdouble wrote: post #755

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You choose to simplify how to integrate the modem into the system while digging deeper into how tethering happens. Why doesn't having another separate subsystem running it's own OS managing the cell connection also have network switching implications (something deciding the connection is now the primary one, just like it does for tethering), security issues (it's a know attack vector on phones as well), power managem…

Can you make a reasonable case for why the experience must necessarily be worse in macOS than it is in iOS and iPadOS?

IOS was built from the ground to handle cellular networking, and the whole stack is optimized for that, including sandboxing network connections and not allowing server type applications or anything that directly tries to mess with the networking layer in a way that is not explicitly authorized.

Coming from a mature OS built from a completely different paradigm is going to require a lot more effort. In particular macos has a whole legacy of programs doing almost whatever they want.

Apple _can_ just slap a cell networking subsystem in it and let it crash and burn whenever something unexpected happens or the user gets out of the defined boundaries of when it should work (like depleting system memory), but that doesn't sound like a great brand strategy to me and is not what people seem to be expecting. Microsoft will be on board with it, but I don't see Apple.

Re: Apple Debuts iPhone 16e

#833

Post by seec »

musictubes wrote: post #611
seec wrote: post #595

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. But Apple has so many low hanging fruits that anything that doesn't make billions is irrelevant to them. Apple is making way too much money for the good of their customers. If only people would stop mindlessly buying, they would eventually listen but their userbase has become so huge that they are not going to change anytime soon.

Nobody buys Apple products anymore because they’re too popular? Or maybe they’d be more popular if people bought fewer devices? I can’t make any sense out of what you’re saying. What if, and I know this is a crazy thought but what if people aren’t buying Apple products mindlessly? What if they buy them because they like them? Maybe they’d didn’t buy the mini phones because they didn’t like them.

I didn't say any of the weird questions/statement you try to pin me for. Maybe it doesn't make sense to you because you are confused?

Then again, you are confused, I never said they were buying mindlessly. They buy it because they are popular and confer status. This is why the vast majority of people buy them, not a well-reasoned and careful choice attained by proper comparison and knowledge after reviewing options.

It's not good for people who view those things as tools, because price increase and focus on the historical target group diminish tremendously.

It's not something that is exclusive to Apple but it's particularly painful because of the quirks of computing (having software linked to a particular hardware platform).

And yes, they didn't buy the Mini phone because they didn't like them. It confers less status and is not as good as a social media machine, so of course.

But by this logic McDonalds must be good because of how many people like them and somehow that's a desirable and valuable outcome.

Re: Apple Debuts iPhone 16e

#834

Post by uni_baconcat »

kalleboo wrote: post #830
uni_baconcat wrote: post #628

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And I noticed that Apple C1 skipped 3G network entirely. Only has 2G,4G and 5G support.

The iPhone 16e Tech Specs page lists 3G (UMTS/HSDPA) support. It's missing CDMA, but they already dropped that way back with the iPhone 14 https://www.apple.com/iphone-16e/specs/ 5G NR (Bands n1, n2, n3, n5, n7, n8, n12, n14, n20, n25, n26, n28, n29, n30, n38, n40, n41, n48, n53, n66, n70, n71, n75, n76, n77, n78, n79) FDD‑LTE (Bands 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 32, 66, 71) TD‑…

Yeah you are right. I checked the website again. The missing one is DC-HSDPA. I incorrectly think that is the entire 3G networks.

Re: Apple Debuts iPhone 16e

#836

Post by amazingman »

makeitdouble wrote: post #832
amazingman wrote: post #819

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you make a reasonable case for why the experience must necessarily be worse in macOS than it is in iOS and iPadOS?

IOS was built from the ground to handle cellular networking, and the whole stack is optimized for that, including sandboxing network connections and not allowing server type applications or anything that directly tries to mess with the networking layer in a way that is not explicitly authorized. Coming from a mature OS built from a completely different paradigm is going to require a lot more effort. In particular mac…

I think that qualifies as what I asked for, thanks. I appreciate the engagement, and am perhaps a bit less optimistic about the kinds of tradeoffs that might need to be made with cellular on macOS.

Re: Apple Debuts iPhone 16e

#838

Post by walterbell »

tempaccount420 wrote: post #761
walterbell wrote: post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cheap HDMI to USB-c adapter was relatively painless with Orion app for video display on iPad Air/Pro.

The cheap ones have high latency and only 1080p, no?

It was adequate for CLI/terminal/console usage, i.e. there was no issue between iPad and the capture card, any limitations were intrinsic to the card itself and would be the same on a PC laptop with Windows/Linux.

Non-Pro iPads are limited to USB2 speeds. Capturing 4K content for display on iPad would need a Pro device with USB3/Thunderbolt USB-c input.

Re: Apple Debuts iPhone 16e

#839

Post by jki275 »

Kwpolska wrote: post #414
insane_dreamer wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple managed to design its own state-of-the-art CPUs. I wouldn't have imagined that designing its own modem would be such a difficult challenge?

Modems are harder to get right than CPUs. A CPU needs to do math and work with digital data lines. A modem needs to talk to the mobile network, using radios, and a bunch of standards that were built up since the 90s.

Also patents. Everything in the cell modem world is horribly encumbered by patents -- many of which I believe Qualcomm owns.

Re: Apple Debuts iPhone 16e

#840

Post by lofaszvanitt »

uni_baconcat wrote: post #679
lofaszvanitt wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course, since they gimped it. What about creating a smaller version laden with features...

ASUS tried. Zenfone packed flagship camera, display and chip into a compact body, but still sales poorly. So they also gave up last year.

It's more about creating a cult-like environment and getting people to see the whole thing as a status symbol.

Also, companies need to plan for the long term instead of throwing up their hands at the first failure...

Post reply on HN