This is a really great article from Anandtech with benchmarks and analysis, it explained a lot of things.
> The overall performance gains are quite disappointing when you factor in the raw cost increase that comes with this new M2 and the fact that it has been nearly 2 years since the M1’s introduction.
Also the logic of article in the title is little weird to me. M1 was introduced in the same year as A14, they use the same core; while M2 uses the same core as A15, which introduced 1 year after M1. So technically M2 increased the performance by 18% in one year, not two years.
Though I'm curious why Apple didn't use A16's core in M2.
> Though I'm curious why Apple didn't use A16's core in M2.
Probably the smaller process node. There's low capacity and low yields for the first year or two of the smaller node. It might not be an issue for the base-level M2s, but they'll be expected to update the Pro/Max/Ultra line up as well in the next 8 months which have much larger die sizes and they'd end up throwing away most of the wafer.
Which is weird because most iPhone users use all the power for stuff like WhatsApp. iPhones are plenty fast already (honestly probably mostly due to a well cared-for UI).
It’s my opinion that Apple sees putting the best processors in iPhones as being able to extend the life of the product. With that available compute overhead today it will feel “faster” longer and can take advantage of software features they develop 1-3 years down the line.
It is looking like A16 will be on a smaller node. Likely manufacturing it on the current node would be too expensive due to increased transistor count.
Available volume on the new node will be much smaller, so they had to prioritize. This is likely why only the iPhone pro will get the A16.
>Though I'm curious why Apple didn't use A16's core in M2.
We will know soon enough. My guess is that A16 is designed with TSMC 3nm in mind, that is why ( rumour ) only the new iPhone Pro will get A16, and iPhone 14 will stick to A15.
Given that M2 is available in a week or two, and the A16 isn't, I would say it's a scheduling thing. In order to have the M1 to M2 cadence not blow out, they have to make decisions about what can go into the product.
Personally, I doubt the blocking of app updates is due to failed acquisition. Yes, let’s admit the facts are Apple tried to buy FlickType, the attempt failed, FlickType is blocked from issuing updates, and Apple released keyboard for Watch 7. But let’s think from a different angle, Apple is a large corporation, all these steps were performed by different teams under different organizations.
I can image when acquisition happens, the keyboard team under software org will need to have some sort of requests to M&A(?) org, and then let them negotiate the details like price and make decisions. And app store review team is not involved in this discussion process.
For the M&A (I don’t know the actual name) org, IMO there is no incentive to block an app update due to a failed acquisition, they handle acquisitions every day and turned down offers are normal to them.
For the keyboard team, do they really want to block the app updates for a revenge? It’s possible but I think unlikely, they’re not competing with FlickType. Yes, they sherlocked the FlickType, but they don’t have the pressure to increase adoption because the native keyboard will have better experience (may not fair to developers if no API provided), and only available on watch 7.
Let’s say the keyboard team do want a revenge. Then some manager under keyboard team, which is a few levels down the tree of software org, needs to talk with another manager in app review team, which is also a few levels down of marketing org, for the blocking of updates for a specific app. Why would the manger of app review team accept such request? Imaging you’re that app store review manager, someone down the line of another org ask you to do something not only hurt the reputation of the company, but also yourself either externally or internally. Will you accept that request?
To be clear, this is my guess, and I don’t know what’s really going there, I could be wrong, and this is indeed a revenge. But my point is things may not connected as they look like.
I live in CA and have type 2 diabetes, and I need to inject insulin once per day; on average, I use 1 insulin pen per month. The cost of 5 pens box at local pharmacy is about $33. The price used to be $40+ per box two years ago and recently dropped. So the insulin cost for me is about $7 per month.
I usually only care about the “real” price, which is the price I actually paid, rather than the prices from an article.
Maybe there’s difference between a type 1 patient, but this is my personal experience.
Your costs would be much higher with Type 1: somewhere between 10-30mL (3-10x 3mL pens) is more typical.
This is actually addressed in the article though:
> The study used manufacturer prices for the analysis. The final, net prices paid for insulins are likely to be significantly lower than manufacturer prices in the U.S. because rebates and other discounts often drive down the price paid by individuals in the U.S.
> why the hell should Apple prevent someone from putting a counterfeit battery/screen/whatever inside of it?
You can definitely do whatever you want to the machine. And the audit prevents my parents got scammed by those individual shops. eg. Paid the price for a genius battery but got a counterfeit from China.
The scam is already included in the price of the phone itself in my opinion.
I am sick of arguments "for" consumer protection here. There is no chocolate pudding if someone shits on your plate. Sure there is QA, but not in the interest of consumers for any replaceable part.
As someone who has quite a lot of apple phones in my hands, the genuine Chinese batteries die as frequently as the not genuine Chinese batteries. They both smell nicely like bubblegum at least.
Looks like this started in 2019, so I guess it only affects more recent hardware? I put an iFixit battery in my 5S a year ago and I didn't hear any complaints (doubled the life of it compared to the tired old one in there, too).
I agree you with this one, it's not one way is better than the other. Personally I care about the design or portability much more than the repairability; I'm totally fine with them swap the whole logic board to repair one tiny chip, or even give me a new one instead; this "reflect my budget and concerns".
The "right to repair" act seems will hurt consumers like me, which prefer a slimmer design than if it's repairable or not. How much repair does it want to push? Repair individual CPU cores?
The free market lets companies make stuff for their targeted consumer groups, which is great. Everyone has a choice, based on individual "budget and concerns".
Right to repair isn't about forcing companies to develop repairable devices. It's about removing the monopoly companies like Apple and John Deere have on their repair business.
Almost any device is repairable, Apple repairs devices themselves. When Apple does component level board repair, they do so with schematics and manuals they don't publish and parts you can't buy.
A free market would allow competing with Apple's repair business.
Based on my repair experience back in China, I understand and support Apple doing this. My opinion is based on the personal experience I had before, and I support people with different opinions.
Back the days (and I still believe it's the case right now) in China there are a lot of phone repair shops ran by individuals or small businesses, and those shops are not certified by any programs, they "operate" by someone has skills to repair electronics. I was tricked by them multiple times.
The first time I was repairing my Nokia N95 with a broken screen (N95 has an exposed "soft" screen), I sent it in to one of those shops; a few hours later, I got a call with an estimated price, and I accepted. Until months later I realized the price they charged me almost doubled the price it supposed to be if I went to a Nokia office service center. I agree I had some fault on this one, but I'm not a pro-consumer that knows everything.
The second time I was repairing a SE M608. Based on the lesson from last time, I refused the price they gave to me and want to get another quote from SE certified repair center. Then the latter told me my phone's internal components was swapped and no longer the original one. I suppose that was done overnight in the repair shop after I refuse their price.
Not to mention my friend got working components in her phone "repaired".
Then I never go to independent or 3rd party repair shops anymore, no matter they're certified or not, because I don't trust them.
I know HN have lots of people know how to repair stuff or able to learn from iFixit, but that's not for everyone. I strongly support Apple put more control and audit to the IRP or ASP to make sure they don't trick their customers. On the other hand, I also think Apple should sell repair components directly on their website, so anyone can repair by themselves if they want to.
My repair experience in China was completely the opposite, and I think you made the first mistake: leaving the device with the shop for any length of time and out of your sight.
Some time ago, in Shenzhen, I saw a friend get his laptop component-level-troubleshooted and repaired while we waited and watched. It was a busy shop too, with multiple stalls and a lineup of others waiting for service.
I have different experience in China. I have been to Shenzhen where is the biggest market for Apple and I couldn’t believe my eyes. Battery replaced in minutes and I could have watched them. The only thing they said is that I need to bring my own battery - there were numerous sellers on the same floor. I also bought my iPhone XR (2nd hand) for a very cheap price and there is diagnostic for free (computers that have licensed software).
Now when I was asked to pay 400eur for battery replacement for MBP that has double the value I declined. I replaced it myself for some 3rd party battery.
This is a fair point. Laws are different, so procedures can be different. Not to mention the city’s situation is critical - protests - violence from both side.
Following US procedures in HK does not make sense. Companies always obey local laws but not laws in another country.
That's why I said Tim Cook should actually spell out what local Hong Kong laws were violated, if any. There actually could be some, but so far I did not see anybody actually pointing out any such laws, neither the Hong Kong government, nor the myriad of journalists covering the story about the app, nor Apple which surely had their in-house counsel and maybe evn external counsel look into this matter.
After that, the next question is if Apple, which even kinda positions itself as the new "Don't be evil" company including fighting some governments e.g. when they get told to subvert their own security tech, should side with such draconian laws or with the app makers.
