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

M4 MacBook Pro

apple.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

851–860 of 1001 posts

Re: M4 MacBook Pro

#851

Post by stouset »

lukev wrote: post #617
doctorpangloss wrote: post #601

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Privacy is the new obscenity. What does privacy even mean to you concretely? Answer the question with no additional drama, and I guarantee you either Apple doesn’t deliver what you are asking for, or you are using services from another company, like Google, in a way that the actions speak that you don’t really care about what you are asking for.

End to end encryption by default, such that the cloud provider cannot access my data. Easy.

It’s honestly not worth engaging with the privacy fundamentalists. They are not arguing in good faith.

Apple doesn’t run open hardware, and supports features users want that involve opening a network connection back home? Hard privacy fail.

Re: M4 MacBook Pro

#852

Post by factorialboy »

lukev wrote: post #535

I really respect Apple's privacy focused engineering. They didn't roll out _any_ AI features until they were capable of running them locally, and before doing any cloud-based AI they designed and rolled out Private Cloud Compute. You can argue about whether it's actually bulletproof or not but the fact is, nobody else is even trying, and have lost sight of all privacy-focused features in their rush to ship anything a…

> I really respect Apple's privacy focused engineering.

Everytime you launch an app, Mac OS dials home.

Re: M4 MacBook Pro

#853

Post by KeplerBoy »

the_king wrote: post #593

The single core performance looks really fast. Chip | Geekbench Score (Process) ---- | ------------------------ M1 | 2,419 (5nm) M2 | 2,658 (5nm) M3 | 3,076 (3nm) M4* | 3,810 (3nm) In my experience, single-core CPU is the best all-around indicator of how "fast" a machine feels. I feel like Apple kind of buried this in their press release. M4 benchmark source: https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/8171874

I wonder how reliable geekbench tests are. Afaik it's the most common benchmark run on apple devices, so apple has a great interest in making sure their newest chips perform great on the test.

I wouldn't be surprised to hear that the geekbench developers are heavily supported by apple's own performance engineers and that testing might not be as objective or indicative of real world perf as one would hope.

Re: M4 MacBook Pro

#856

Post by xcv123 »

xyst wrote: post #481

> … advanced 12MP … camera wot, m8? Only Apple will call a 12 megapixel camera “advanced”. Same MPs as an old iPhone 6 rear camera. Aside from that, it’s pretty much the same as the prior generation. Same thickness in form factor. Slightly better SoC. Only worth it if you jump from M1 (or any Intel mbp) to M4. Would be godlike if Apple could make the chip swappable. Buy a Mac Studio M2 Ultra Max Plus. Then just upgra…

More megapixels on a tiny sensor does not make it more advanced. At a certain point it only makes it worse. That doesn't tell you anything about the quality of the image. There is way more to digital cameras than pixel count.

Re: M4 MacBook Pro

#857

Post by astrange »

rowanG077 wrote: post #732
astrange wrote: post #691

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ARMv8 is not much like previous ARMs. But it has won - Intel's latest x86 extension basically turns it into ARMv8. https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/developer/articles/t...

I couldn't disagree more, the defining difference between ARMv8 and x86 is the memory model.

Hmm, I think the difference between x86 and anything else is variable length two-operand instructions. APX changes one of those but not the other.

The difference between ARM and anything else is that ARM has successfully shipped all of its security features (PAC, BTI, MTE) and Intel has not.

Re: M4 MacBook Pro

#858

Post by d_theorist »

dmz73 wrote: post #562
lukev wrote: post #535

I really respect Apple's privacy focused engineering. They didn't roll out _any_ AI features until they were capable of running them locally, and before doing any cloud-based AI they designed and rolled out Private Cloud Compute. You can argue about whether it's actually bulletproof or not but the fact is, nobody else is even trying, and have lost sight of all privacy-focused features in their rush to ship anything a…

Mac OS calls home every time you execute an application. Apple is well on its way to ensure you can only run things they allow via app store, they would probably already be there if it wasn't for the pesky EU. If you send your computer/phone to Apple for repair you may get back different physical hardware. Those things very much highlight that "your" Apple hardware is not yours and that privacy on Apple hardware does…

> Apple is well on its way to ensure you can only run things they allow via app store, they would probably already be there if it wasn't for the pesky EU.

People have been saying this ever since Apple added the App Store to the Mac in 2010. It’s been 14 years. I wonder how much time has to go by for people to believe it’s not on Apple’s todo list.

Re: M4 MacBook Pro

#859

Post by MediumOwl »

nkmskdmfodf wrote: post #764
lukev wrote: post #554

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course I wish the hardware were somehow more open, but to a large extent, it's directly because of hardware based privacy features. If you allowed third-party components without restraint, there'd be no way to prevent someone swapping out a component. Lock-in and planned obsolescence are also factors, and ones I'm glad the EU (and others) are pushing back here. But it isn't as if there are no legitimate tradeoffs.…

> to a large extent, it's directly because of hardware based privacy features. First, this is 100% false. Second, security through obscurity is almost universally discouraged and considered bad practice.

> Second, security through obscurity is almost universally discouraged and considered bad practice.

This is stupid advice that is mindlessly repeated. Security by obscurity only is bad, sure. Adding obscurity to other layers of security is good.

Edit: formatting

Re: M4 MacBook Pro

#860

Post by grecy »

toxicdevil wrote: post #814
the_king wrote: post #593

The single core performance looks really fast. Chip | Geekbench Score (Process) ---- | ------------------------ M1 | 2,419 (5nm) M2 | 2,658 (5nm) M3 | 3,076 (3nm) M4* | 3,810 (3nm) In my experience, single-core CPU is the best all-around indicator of how "fast" a machine feels. I feel like Apple kind of buried this in their press release. M4 benchmark source: https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/8171874

These numbers are misleading (as in not apples to apples comparison). M4 has a matrix multiply hardware extension which can accelerate code written (or compiled) specifically for this extension. Also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40339248

So you're saying Apple added something to the design to make it do things faster...which is literally the definition of improvement.

When a company adds a supercharger to a car does it not count as faster?

When I add more solar panels to my roof does it not count as more power?

Surely doing this kind of thing is exactly what we want companies to be doing to make their products faster/better.

Post reply on HN