But I don't really see how this will affect Intel financially in any meaningful way in the short term.
They won't provide chips for Apple anymore, but that must have been a relatively small number of units, so no great financial loss to them.
And Apple are never going to sell these chips generally, so there's no competition there.
In the long term though it may actually benefit Intel (and AMD/NVidia) who might work out exactly what Apple have done and possibly replicate it in their own CPUs.
That assumes Apple won't be growing its PC market share.
Given the M1's benefits, the ability of Big Sur to run iOS apps, and Apple's marketing prowess, I'd be surprised if they don't double their market share in the next 3 to 4 years.
Then there's the (highly lucrative) server market.
> Then there's the (highly lucrative) server market.
Apple has flirted with the server market on several occasions. I could see a well priced Apple server with an M series CPU doing quite well if Apple did it right. That said, Apple has never really shined here and it's not really their strong point.
I'm sure MacStadium would love if Apple launched a blade server platform where you could just slot Mac mini logic boards in.
I could see Apple potentially licensing the design (minus IP critical to their MacOS workstation offering like the GPU or neural engine), to a big cloud provider, if the cloud provider does the heavy lifting on the Linux port (something Apple isn’t publicly talking about) you could see this become a big deal overnight.
While Apple's volumes are low, often their parts are mostly the higher end chips. I think just about every i9 laptop mention I've ever seen has been in a MBP 16". So while it's 10-15% of Intel's volumes, I've heard numbers as high as 40% of the profit.
I have no idea how much of Intel's profit can be attributed to Apple, but Apple definitely buys more higher end laptop CPUs from Intel than anyone else. That's going to hurt their bottom line.
I also expect Apple will be picking up some market share. How much remains to be seen. If price/ performance was your primary reason for avoiding Apple, it's gotten a lot harder to resist switching.
I doubt much of the market cares particularly much about price/perf. But the $700 impact does seem like an impressive value that can do a wide range of things not normally considered for this price point. Things like editing 4k video.
"The woman said she has always been supportive of efforts like New Hampshire’s “Free the Nipple” campaign, though she doesn’t actively participate in such movements."
Aha! Even more electioneering - where does it end with this woman?
:)
Added to that China has built the world a really nice base near the Spratlys that I'm sure could be quite quickly overwhelmed by another country and used as a nice forward base to control the SCS.
I think Atlassian have a dual licensing model where you can download the source code and build the product yourself, but only for single users, or open source projects.
Commercial users however have to buy a copy, but the source is available for all.
Maybe somebody could create a github (sharehub?) equivalent where anybody doing a clone has to register and then commercial entities can pay for the licence or single use hobbyists could attest.
people sharing the code can then set what they see as a fair price and the website will take a cut of the revenue (e.g. 30% ducks )
>The fact so many people feel they need a gun for safety is the first and biggest issue IMO.
And the reason for that is simple - marketing.
Here in Switzerland I basically see no guns unless I go to the shooting club. There's none sold in the shops, there's none advertised in newspapers, tv or on the radio. And there is definitely no gun offered when opening a bank account.
Basically if you want a gun for whatever reason - usually for recreational shooting at the shooting club, then you have to go out and look for it.
In the US I have the feeling that they're marketed as a penis extension, and you're not a proper man unless you shoot things, with the view that you'd be quite happy to project a slug of lead into somebody else at high velocity to prove you're more of a man than they are.
To solve the problem in the US I think you need to ban the advertising - like cigarettes.
Caution: This weapon inflicts pain suffering and death to others. User may be incarcerated for murder if ever used. If in a situation of conflict, gun only increases likelihood of extreme violence - leave at home.
I spent over 30 years in the U.S., mostly in the upper Midwest, and the only gun advertisements I remember seeing were in sporting magazines or in sporting goods stores. I think your perceptions of U.S. gun advertising is either greatly exaggerated, or your experience is from a very different part of the country. Maybe things have changed drastically in the 8 years since I left, but I doubt it.
Maybe things have changed drastically in the 8 years since I left, but I doubt it.
I think they have. I've also seen more gun stores opening, with provocative names.
I've no problem with firearms used responsibly for hunting or recreation, but in the very few cases I've seen someone open carrying a handgun (once at a very crowded national park, and once at a residential picnic area, both just this year) it was clear they didn't have a gun to defend themselves (if that were the case you don't need to show it off), but to threaten others. And for defending yourself against wild animals, bear spray is far more effective.
Crazy. How often do you see TV ads for firearms, firearms dealers, or gun shows these days?
I figured that the US just seemed to get crazy around 2012 because I switched to primarily external news coverage of the U.S. when I moved abroad.
Actually, now that I think about it, I think I have seen TV ads for both Remington and Beneli shotguns in duck hunting and fishing shows in the U.S. But, I'm pretty sure I've never seen TV ads for pistols in the U.S., or long guns outside of hunting/fishing shows.
One of the dudes was wearing a t-shirt with wording that strongly supports my evaluation. But even if you aren't trying to threaten, the visible presence of a deadly weapon (especially a sleek semi-auto as opposed to a revolver) creates a pretty negative "vibe". Note that I'm talking about handguns stuffed into a belt or on a leg holster, not e.g. a hunting rifle or shotgun.
Agreed, people who aren't in to firearms or firearms-related sports will basically never see an ad for a gun in the U.S. I do think the penis-extension bit gets the gist of much of the marketing that does exist right, though.
There are lots of flags controlling what it outputs, so have a look, there's likely a way to adjust it. Or alternatively, ip supports "-json" so you can process it however you want, or write wrappers.
It was the UK trials of the Oxford and AstraZeneca vaccine after 1 person experienced an adverse reaction - but that's the whole point of the trials and not uncommon so no major worry there, and they were restarted soon after.
It’s just a political thing. You see the same behavior in threads about climate change. A seemingly innocuous comment to you is a firebrand political statement to someone who thinks the virus is a hoax or whatever.
Maybe some AI and sensors would also be useful in the fully remotely driven vehicles to ensure
that people can also operate in the warehouse without too much fear of being run over.
Otherwise I'd hate to rely on somebody who-knows-where noticing in time that I'm there or responding in time to my voice.
They won't provide chips for Apple anymore, but that must have been a relatively small number of units, so no great financial loss to them.
And Apple are never going to sell these chips generally, so there's no competition there.
In the long term though it may actually benefit Intel (and AMD/NVidia) who might work out exactly what Apple have done and possibly replicate it in their own CPUs.