Releases are created off the master. Only if something is supported for long a branch is created where only fixes are backported, no development happens there.
What the GP suggested I assume is one master-like branch for every deployed version. Otherwise it makes no sense.
Unlikely - being able to have full control of your roadmap is a huge strategic advantage. Profits and revenue are nice, but if Apple was interested in that they could dual source x86 from AMD and drive cost down.
You don’t think companies like Oculus are envious of Apple’s flexibility from not having to rely on Qualcomm for their mobile SoCs? It’s not just about profit margin.
> Profits and revenue are nice, but if Apple was interested in that they could dual source x86 from AMD and drive cost down.
If Apple could do that and play it to their advantage, they would have done so a long time ago.
Higher margins and profits are the drivers in the end. Strategic control or not is just a way they use to achieve that. It is a publicly traded company, after all.
> You don’t think companies like Oculus are envious of Apple’s flexibility from not having to rely on Qualcomm for their mobile SoCs?
I doubt Oculus cares given their goal. There are pros and cons of vertically integrating an entire company into one.
Genuine question: unless you run a datacenter with thousands of CPUs, does it really matter?
Apple has zero presence in data centers.
I read people here writing "double the battery life" without any source, but even if that was the case I own a laptop that does 2 hours on battery, I use it to run models on a discrete GPU so power efficiency goes out of the window anyway, it's really not achievable.
The other one can handle average workloads for 12 hours and weights a bit more then a kilo, if it was smaller or lighter it would be a much worse laptop than it is (if it's too light it has no stability and you fight constantly to keep it steady on your desk)
> Genuine question: unless you run a datacenter with thousands of CPUs, does it really matter?
I think it does. Other than double the battery life (which I wouldn't really need, but my Dad who travels a lot would absolutely love), the big thing is thermals (which were specifically mentioned in the keynote).
The biggest constraint on Laptop performance is thermal throttling. That's why gaming laptops have huge bulky fans, and a current MacBook has pretty decent performance for short bursts, but if you are running something (say a compiler) at full throttle for a few minutes then it gets significantly throttled.
Better thermal performance (which is directly proportional to power usage) could well be the key to unlocking close-to-desktop performance in a laptop form-factor. Which could be a pretty big win for the MacBook Pro market.
Every single human holding a responsibility at any level gets blame all the time. There is nothing wrong with that, nor with making mistakes, and it is a fact of life.
Clang (not LLVM) was made by Apple [1, 2]. They specifically hired the lead developer of LLVM to build it because they were not happy with GCC. At this point many other companies have also contributed, but Clang is first and foremost developed as Apple's compiler. It is a safe bet that they will optimize it for new Apple hardware.
> Clang (not LLVM) was made by Apple [1, 2]. They specifically hired the lead developer of LLVM to build it
No, one cannot claim "Apple makes Clang" (which was your original claim) just because they funded the initial effort many years ago. It is not their product and they do not control it. It is like saying Blender is made by the original company who developed the initial version.
The LLVM Foundation (a legal entity) is the actual owner.
> because they were not happy with GCC
Many companies are not happy with GCC due to the license. Which is why so many companies work on LLVM.
> Clang is first and foremost developed as Apple's compiler.
False. The Clang version that Apple includes with macOS is not even close to the latest Clang.
> It is a safe bet that they will optimize it for new Apple hardware.
False. Optimizing is mainly the job of LLVM, not Clang.
Further, most optimization passes are independent of architecture. Codegen targets Intel, AMD, ARM, etc. hardware in general, not Apple’s in particular.
Any meaningful connection is going to be too expensive for someone like GP, I am afraid.
This is a false generalization. You don't have to choose a big-name New York PR agency. There are thousands of other shops that are quite affordable. Some are just one or two people, and can be surprisingly effective if you pick the right one.
The PR firm is not what I said is expensive, but whatever deal you reach with the contacts they provide you.
In other words, even if the PR firm is small and one of the best and cheap, they cannot really influence much whatever their contacts offer. They may have some leverage, but the price is the price...
There is no way in many languages to write an if using a match.