> It was about x64 being unable to keep up - independent of Intel’s Fab capabilities which have improved lately.
But the big reason x64 couldn't keep up was that Intel's fab capabilities were horrible. Intel got stuck and couldn't get smaller nodes out and competing fabs caught up and left Intel in the dust.
Apple was able to ship 22nm Intel processors in Summer 2012 while their iPhone processors were 32nm that Fall and 28nm in Fall 2013. Spring 2015, Apple shipped 14nm Intel laptops and later that Fall 14/16nm iPhones. Competitors had caught up and soon TSMC started surpassing Intel.
Yes, Intel's fab capabilities have improved lately, but Intel's fab failures were causing x64 to fall behind. If Intel had retained fab supremacy, x64 wouldn't have fallen behind. I think Apple still likes the idea of being able to build exactly the parts they want (so they can optimize for power, thermals, etc), but Intel fell behind because their fabs stopped being competitive.
>> It was about x64 being unable to keep up - independent of Intel’s fab capabilities, which have improved lately.
> But the big reason x64 couldn't keep up was that Intel's fab capabilities were horrible. Intel got stuck and couldn't get smaller nodes out, and competing fabs caught up and left Intel in the dust.
It also was that Intel couldn’t execute reliably on their own roadmap, forcing Apple at the time to do extra engineering to incorporate Intel's chips. Apple sells a lot of laptops; Intel never got their act together regarding mobile processors for MacBooks and MacBook Pros.
The 8-core Mac Pro used Intel Xeon 5500 series; at idle, it used 309 W; it used 9 fans for cooling [1]. It sounded like a jet engine when it was running. And while it was an elegant design for the time, they shouldn’t have needed to jump through these hoops.
> It also was that Intel couldn’t execute reliably on their own roadmap,
Intel kept putting out delusional roadmaps that would assume their 10nm fab process was going to be ready for mass production in just another quarter or two. They spent years refusing to plan for 10nm to not be ready, so all their new architectures were unshippable and they had to resort to just using copy and paste on their 2015 CPU cores. Their fab fuck-up was hardly the only mistake they made in that era, but it was the biggest underlying cause of their problems.
+1 for me in Australia, but it's due to using an ad blocker:
---
Support trusted, global news.
Advertising on our site enables us to bring you timely, unbiased news from around the world. Please consider supporting us by disabling your adblocker or subscribing to Reuters.com:
Allow ads to support trusted, global news
Subscribe to support trusted, global news
VRM by Admiral
---
For what it's worth, Reader Mode in Firefox displays the article text anyway.
I believe that both of those statements are true. Nonetheless, I and other posters are experiencing one here and can't read the article. Your valid anecdote does not help us.
Maybe, but we pay notably more to outsource than we were previously paying for in-house dev; it works better at our scale - our client apps probably merit like 1 FTE developer, and it's easier to get appropriate expertise for mobile app development from a third party that specializes in that rather than trying to maintain it in-house, or by spreading the pain of Apple provisioning profiles and app store review, etc. among a team of non-mobile devs.
It's interesting how different people's circle are. I don't know a single human that wrote any app for their phone on iOS. I know several that did it for Android and other phones.
I am not talking about businesses selling apps to end users for gain, I am talking about people tinkering, making one off digital art projects, etc. The tinkerers I know want to just side load their apps and that's easier in less walled gardens.
The set of behaviors is certainly fixed or constrained with an LLM exactly the same way as an interpreter- if neither one has an escape from the pre-programmed APIs included in the app, they can’t escape regardless of what they do. Apple allows interpreters that run entered or downloaded code like programmable calculators and even more powerful environments. There’s nothing special about an LLM creating an app.
That’s Pascal case any way. Looks sort of camel case with the “io” being lower case.
reply