The "bento box" graphic during the presentation yesterday said AV1. From the press release:
The Media Engine of M4 is the most advanced to come to iPad. In addition to supporting the most popular video codecs, like H.264, HEVC, and ProRes, it brings hardware acceleration for AV1 to iPad for the first time. This provides more power-efficient playback of high-resolution video experiences from streaming services.
The main reason sales fell this year compared to the year-ago quarter is because the quarter before that Apple wasn't able to keep up with iPhone 14 demand leading to shortages and depleted channel inventory. The following quarter they were able to meet demand and replenish the sales channel leading a boosted year-ago quarter that was $5 billion bigger than it really should have been. Apple didn't have the same production shortages for the 15 launch. It makes this quarter they just reported look like a big decline but that's not really the whole story.
My simple understanding of the idea is it forces AI companies to have to avoid taking those comments.
It does not because it can't add an limitation that didn't already exist. Without appending a license, the comment already gets the strongest protection copyright law allows it (whatever that ends up being). A CC license is a selective removal of, in this case, some of those inherent limitations.
It doesn't restrict anybody from doing something that they would have been able to do without it; it merely lets some people do more than they would have otherwise been able to.
It's annoying to scroll through and many people don't want to see this sort of misinformation spreading. Even if I can block a couple of people, I certainly don't want to see it become a trend.
This means absolutely nothing. How much of their advertising revenue comes from the US.
To quote the article again, "The U.S. accounted for about 25% of TikTok overall revenues last year, said a separate source with direct knowledge." Honestly, I think that makes the case for shutting it down even stronger. TikTok isn't in some growth-at-all-costs phase in the US. It's likely near its peak potential userbase. If they haven't been able to make it profitable by now, that doesn't bode well for it ever becoming significantly profitable. Absent the legal issues, they think it's still worth at least trying, but as it stands, it's just a lot of money in and, just as quickly, out, with nothing to show for it at the end of the day.
I think it's a privately-owned, profit-focused endeavor that is nevertheless beholden to the Chinese government and which the government wants to take as much advantage of as possible. Deep down, I'm certain that their sole goal is to make as much money for themselves as they possibly can. If they also need to exfiltrate some data and send it to the CCP, that's just a necessary business expense.
I agree that it seems like inconsistent thinking though. (EU vs China)
The EU is ostensibly capitalist democracies. Publicly criticizing arbitrary and ill-conceived regulations, that can perhaps be improved, is useful. China makes no pretense about being a free country and I think the moral calculus is rather simple: are Chinese citizens better off with Apple there, doing the bare minimum to comply with Chinese law, or with Apple taking the "principled" stand of leaving?
China banned Signal and WhatsApp but has not banned iMessage. If you want secure end-to-end encrypted messaging, iPhones offer that built right in. Apple could leave, but the inevitable result of that is less privacy for Chinese citizens. It's a binary choice. Apple can't make China free, but they can at least offer services without bending over backwards to go above and beyond the CCP's demands, as Chinese companies do.
I think Apple's position is quite consistent: it tries to change the things it can change, fights the things it can fight, and does the bare minimum to comply with things that it doesn't want to but must.
I think it's pretty wild that criticizing something as ill-conceived, arbitrary, and protectionist government overreach will get you labeled as a fascist by some people.
No one big releases a small phone because no one buys them.
Except we don't have any good data to say why. Do people buy a bigger flagship over a smaller model that has older technology? Yes, but the only thing we can say with confidence from that is that people want the latest technology. The closest comparison we can make is Apple's Max/Plus and non-Max/Plus versions, which offer essentially the same model in two sizes. The smaller size consistently sells better. It's also cheaper. Does it sell better because it's smaller or because it's cheaper? Probably both, actually. But as long as nobody offers a small flagship (since Apple stopped making them entirely and switched to larger flagships), nobody can say for sure how well they'd sell.
No, that's precisely my point: they don't because no major phone manufacturer has simultaneously sold both a large and compact flagship. And when there are legitimately comparable models in different sizes, the smaller size fairly reliably sells better.
That’s not true. Apple sold a mini version for several generations and consistently the mini was always the worst performing version sales wise.
The "mini" lineup was never truly comparable to the flagship product. The specific deficiencies varied with the year but they were all missing an entire camera, and cameras are one of the single most important features of an iPhone.
The mini phones were significantly and arbitrarily gimped to mark them as a distinctly (and quite visibly) lower tier phone.
The smaller phones were not comparable models. They were a lower-tier product with fewer features. This contrasts with the regular and Plus/Max versions where it's very much positioned as the same phone in two sizes.
You ignore that it’s physically impossible to put a flagship performance in an under 5 inch format.
Not even slightly.
The battery alone scales with size. The camera is a physically space occupying bunch of glass and sensors, that even the ultra size phones have to put them in awkward bulges outside the phone main body to deliver the kind of qualety demanded by users.
The obvious solution is to make the body of the phone very slightly thicker. Thinness is more important in a bigger phone to shave off some of the overall bulk and make it easier to hold but when the area of the phone is smaller, you can easily make it thicker, with the added advantage of making the camera bulge less ridiculous. I’m reluctant to even call it a tradeoff because you’re not really giving anything up. This would have been a legitimately comparable phone, but they never made it so there’s no direct sales comparison in the market. There is no hard data, only inferences.
Used a couple of US recipes recently and most of the ingredients are in cups, or spoons, not by weight. This is a nightmare to convert. Do Americans not own scales or something? What’s the reason for measuring everything by volume?
For the most part no. They're not rare, but you wouldn't necessarily expect to find them by default either, unless you know someone is really into baking. You would, however, absolutely expect to find measuring cups and spoons in any minimally-equipped kitchen.
They're measuring cups and measuring spoons. They're clearly labeled and the smaller sizes stack in the larger sizes so they're always the cups are always together and the spoons are always together. It's honestly not hard.
It's a measuring cup used specifically for recipes. They're usually sold as a set with 1 cup, 1/2 cup, 1/3 cup, and 1/4 cup, all stacked together and often with a removable ring to link them together. We also use a larger class cup with a handle and spout that's graduated with lines measuring up to 2 cups and up to 500 mL.
For the record I’m an American. I will sometimes ditch a recipe when I see it calls for volumetric measurements.
I inevitably pull up the King Arthur Baking ingredient weight chart and just convert to weight, though for baking I try to just stick to British recipes in the first place so I get weight measurements (but then I'm sometimes stuck trying to convert nonsense such as "gas 2" to an actual temperature).
But of course we all know that the big manufacturers don’t do this not because they can’t but because they don’t want to. Planned obsolescence is still very much the name of the game, despite all the bullshit they spout about sustainability.
Selling you a gadget for $ 1000 every two years will always be more profitable than selling you one very five years and doing service in the meantime.
Are you aware that the current version of iOS is supported by the phones Apple released in 2018? And they're still releasing security updates for the prior version, with support for 2017's iPhone 8?
A battery replacement from Apple itself for an iPhone 8 is $69. You can get third-party replacements for less. They actually offer battery replacements going back to the 5s (released in 2013) and screen repairs going back to the iPhone 6.
A decade of first-party hardware support for the most likely to fail components in a phone is pretty hard to square with allegations of "planned obsolescence."
they try to create a sense of urgency to sell people what they don’t need.
Do they? Yes, they certainly advertise what's new but they're not primarily targeting customers with last year's phone. I recall seeing previously that the average time to keep an iPhone is three years. On Apple's iPhone 15 product page, I found two spots where it called out direct comparisons to previous iPhones: "A17 Pro GPU is up to 70% faster than the GPU in iPhone 12 Pro" and "iPhone 15 Pro has up to 6 more hours video playback than iPhone 12 Pro." They're targeting upgrades to the newest flagship at people with the flagship from three years ago. Of course due to the long support for iPhones, that three year iPhone will inevitably end up in the hands of another user, where it will continue to live on, so there's nothing at all wasteful about upgrading. It's not even wasteful to upgrade every single year because those year-old phones are still used. It's only when the phone is irreparably broken or hopelessly, legitimately obsolete (due to still rapidly-improving technology) that it's then recycled (and Apple has developed special robots to make extracting the rare earth metals viable at large scale).
I wonder what the latest iPhone would look like if Apple were on a once every two years release schedule instead of annual.
I think it would look exactly the same as it does today except that it would include two years' of innovations and changes rather than one, but would also mean that if you needed a new phone before its release, your only option would be an increasingly dated model. Customer: Hi, I'd like the latest flagship. Store: Here's the best technology that was available 20 months ago.
I also think it's worth noting that Apple pretty much single-handedly slowed the release schedule for phones. Prior to the iPhone, Nokia was releasing roughly a dozen barely-differentiated models per year, spread throughout the year.
There's no "too." This is the (US) price to have Apple themselves replace your battery for you with a new OEM battery, inclusive of the battery and labor. It basically represents the highest available cost.
It should also be noted that Apple admitted at one point to purposefully slowing down older iPhones too, which very clearly was done to get people to upgrade. If that’s not planned obsolescence I don’t know what is.
It is the literal exact opposite of planned obsolescence. Apple introduced a new feature, still present in all of their phones, to extend the useful life of old phones. Batteries degrade with time and use and, after a certain extent, are not able to maintain the sufficient and stable current levels for a phone to operate, particularly during moments of peak power draw. If this happens (and this applies to every Android phone as well), the phone will just shut itself down. Specifically it will shut down right in the middle of you trying to actually do something, since that’s what’s going to cause a spike in power demand. Apple added additional power management to iOS to dynamically throttle power use only when and to the extent needed. On a phone with a perfectly healthy battery, it’s not in use at all. On a phone that’s had years of hard use, it might still only barely be noticeable with some high-demand tasks running slightly slower or the screen slightly dimming. The worse health the battery is in, the lower its current charge level, and the greater the temporary spike in usage, the greater the throttling. Recharge it or resume less intense use and the throttling stops.
So after release (unplanned), they gave new life to what were otherwise obsolete batteries so you could wait longer to upgrade.
I gave a longer response in a different comment but the short version is they made old phones usable for longer by making the experience objectively better (modest temporary throttling is better than sudden shutdown) so that you wouldn’t have to buy a new phone as quickly.
Apple introduces M4 chip (www.apple.com)
Apple iPhone sales decline 10% in first three months of 2024 (www.gsmarena.com)
What is the Anti Commercial-Al license and why do people keep adding it to their comments?
I know what the Creative Commons is but not this new thing or why it keeps popping up in comments on Lemmy
ByteDance prefers TikTok shutdown in US if legal options fail, sources say (www.reuters.com)
Corporatism and fascism are two sides of the same coin – OSnews (www.osnews.com)
Apple loses top phonemaker spot to Samsung as iPhone shipments drop, research company says (www.nbcnews.com)
Why do Americans measure everything in cups?
Used a couple of US recipes recently and most of the ingredients are in cups, or spoons, not by weight. This is a nightmare to convert. Do Americans not own scales or something? What’s the reason for measuring everything by volume?
Fairbuds are Fairphone’s proof that we really could make better tiny gadgets (arstechnica.com)
But of course we all know that the big manufacturers don’t do this not because they can’t but because they don’t want to. Planned obsolescence is still very much the name of the game, despite all the bullshit they spout about sustainability.
Beeper Took On Apple’s iMessage Dominance. Now It’s Been Acquired | WIRED (www.wired.com)