I’m not claiming insider knowledge, just going by publicly documents on Apple’s architecture and operations.
Private Cloud Compute runs on Apple silicon servers derived from the same silicon used in devices, with custom secure OS infrastructure built around them. See Apple’s security documentation and reporting on PCC servers by finding the link somewhere in the comments of this thread.
As for their econ model, just see Cook’s methodical style with fast turnover to avoid stockpiling [1], i.e., the opposite of what is going on with AI servers where margins are cut at every step of the way. So sharing an assembly facility doesn’t imply chips are interchangeable, it may well just be assembly efficiency, which I guess is common.
> To address emissions generated by using primary materials, we’re increasing the recycled content in our products, maximizing material and manufacturing efficiencies, and improving yields.
This wording is very specific. It's not "recycled materials", it's "recycled content" to address the emissions of using primary materials. I find it to be very sneaky.
I'm not saying they're refurbishing used servers, but there's definitely something going on here.
Look at their overall environment report from 2024 (not product specific):
There is a section about "Material recovery". Here is a quote:
> Even after a product reaches the end of its life, the materials within it can serve the next generation of products.
> Each time that we effectively recover materials from end-of-life products, we enable circular supply chains.
> Disassembly and recovery advancement: Continuing to develop better, more efficient means of disassembling products that maximize material recovery while minimizing waste.
It seems to me that what they're describing here, publicly, is almost exactly what I said. I just made an extra leap implying that the disassembled EOL'd products were servers that never got used and were turned into M4 Minis (which is speculation, but highly informed by these reports).
Why do this? Well, it means they can invest on servers and if they lose some race, they can pivot. It's a unique advantage. I would take advantage of that if I were Tim.
Sounds like greenwashing. They just sell the chips from cnc’ing alu cases to a recycler, hell apple does not even manufacture anything it is all outsourced
I'm hoping that the new Snapdragon X2 Elite based laptops coming out this year will beat it. Qualcomm seems to have been trying to upstream driver support for them earlier than the X1. Then it's up to what kinds of laptops OEMs offer with them.
Personally I'd still just get a used ThinkPad X13s Gen 1 on eBay at this point if I were going to buy another one today because they're available for around $400, and I don't see anything better that's passively cooled, with great battery life, and great Linux support available at the moment. I hope there will be a better, faster alternative in the near future. I'd gladly upgrade.
This is interesting take, because it also solves a common issue whereas all agents try to optimize for the same thing: their rewards will shift with changes to the environment, so in essence they will take different actions according to how each one perceives the environment and calculates rewards, and will thus take different actions.
> but movie making is also energy intensive - people, sets, cameras, shooting, rendering, editing, etc.
Do you have at least the order of magnitude for this? Does it also consume as much water as data centers? Has the entertainment industry ever needed to attract US$7T within 5 years to do what it does?
> “AI is supposed to help humanity advance faster and make humanity more productive.”
Is it? How? Will it really advance life or it is just a probability? Advance in what way, and why do you think being faster is better, and if better, better at what? If it is a probability, what exact number is it? What if it doesn’t happen in the way you think it will?
Do you have at least the order of magnitude for this? Does it also consume as much water as data centers? Has the entertainment industry ever needed to attract US$7T within 5 years to do what it does?
No I don't. But I wanted to call that out.
Is it? How? Will it really advance life or it is just a probability? Advance in what way, and why do you think being faster is better, and if better, better at what? If it is a probability, what exact number is it? What if it doesn’t happen in the way you think it will?
These are all decent questions. I don't have the answer. However, I do know that movies and shows are for entertainment. They do not enhance productivity.
Certain lobbyists like hiding the end-to-end aspects of nuclear and focus mostly on “energy density”, “clean operations” etc, because they take advantage of the fact most people think short term (because, well, it is simpler). It is like the fossil fuel lobbyists that say gas is cheaper but never mention the externalities caused by e.g., the air pollution causing health issues to those living nearby LNG plants, who end up paying for the costs, just not at the moment of operationalization. Of course none of these proponents live near these infrastructures. This is the very same old 60-90’s stories with the tobacco industry saying smoking have health benefits.
reply