All AI features are purely work saving

What is that, 6 years for less than a doubling? Nothing against the Apple chips themselves, but gone are the days of Moore...

Moore was just about the transistor count doubling. Not performance.

Performance is an excellent proxy for transistor count. Somebody else replied with the actual transistor counts, which had basically equal scaling.

Not necessarily. If single core speed doubled but we also doubled or tripled the number of cores, doesn’t that count as keeping up with Moore?

M1 has 16bn transistors, M4 has 28bn. Increasing the core count is useful for some applications (particularly GPU cores), but there are still many critical workloads that are gated by single-threaded performance.

That's not what was being talked about.

Moore's law was never about single threaded performance, it was about transistor count and transistor cost, but people misunderstood it when single threaded performance was increasing exponentially.

GP mentions cores and the article is about benchmarks. The relationship between transistor count, core count, and performance, is exactly on topic.

Single core performance and transistor count are not the same thing and have been disconnected for two decades.

Did you think I said otherwise?

Moore's law was about transistors and cost, you were equating it to performance.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45434910

Your reply here is not directly related or an answer to the comment you replied to.

You have brought a lot of your own assumptions to that reading. OP asked if doubling or tripling core count counted as keeping up with Moore’s law. I pointed out that in the case of the M series (the topic of the thread), regardless of core count, transistor count did not double or triple.

The problem is they don't "let the developers do the work themselves"

If only the platform was open enough that developers had real access, Apple might get away with like you say not providing first party support for gaming.

I mean it more as a counterpoint to what Valve is doing: games are automatically opted-in to working with Proton and pass through a Valve-operated certification program. Because developers aren't part of that loop, you see occasional cases where games issue updates that break compatibility, with users blaming developers based on an outdated, Valve-provided certification.

I also find it a bit extreme how many people feel the need to add some sort of disclaimer every time they say something nice about the guy who died:

- "I strongly disagree with Charlie Kirk, but [...] Condolences to his wife and small kids"

- "I have scant philosophical agreement, but..."

- "While I'm not a fan..."

Says something about the level of polarization that people are so afraid of accidentally being mistaken for a supporter, even in these circumstances. He was not a particularly niche character, his views are probably similar to a decently sized share of the American population. The American people are struggling so hard to find any kind of unity.

It's just that a lot of people argue badly, either because of lacking skill or lacking goodwill.

That doesn't mean their arguments are necessarily wrong. It is necessary to try to reframe such badly made arguments in a way that presents the message properly in order to be able to actually compare competing ideas and find truth.

If you compare one well-crafted argument to a poorly crafted argument, the well-crafted argument would seem to come out on top even if its underlying ideas were actually wrong.

E.g. if I say "Apples are good because my grandma loved apples and you are stupid!"

And my opponent says "Apples are bad because there are other fruits that can be grown much more efficiently and feed people better"

Then my opponent would probably "win" the argument. But that doesn't mean apples are actually bad. Try to remake the argument for why apples are good in a better way, in order to fairly compare the two sides and find the truth.

I want a version of this where the camera is flush with the surface of the phone. I understand and accept that this means the camera will be worse.

Clearly the logical threshold is when a single private corporation becomes the gatekeeper to your life. The internet itself is decentralized so that's fine. Mobile phones as a concept is also fine.

Almost. Having access to the internet requires a device, or public computer if available. A just society would at least maintain ability to interact with all government services through in-person and through post office. Universal access.

At least in some countries you can use a public computer at a library or other government-provided institution. I agree that it ideally shouldn't be required though.

This seems to be percieved as an explicit intended loophole. I've seen contests where they say "for free entry, go to website..." followed with "internet access can be obtained at libraries".

Obviously, the idea of "you don't have to pay to participate" has a strong legal footing, but I have to wonder if they can find a way to pivot that to "I don't have to acquire an Android/iOS device". Maybe they would develop a kiosk-mode version of the OS that will run apps tethered to a placeholder library account.

> At least in some countries you can use a public computer at a library or other government-provided institution

...for now, at least.

I hope people can see what I am saying here, but this is just what the Affordable Health Care Act was in the United States. The government forced up to buy health insurance from private companies, and no one saw a problem with that.

So having health care was dependent on a private third party.

The problem is larger than just smart phones. Smart phones are the templates for all future devices. You car now runs Android as well.

In the future, when your whole house is controlled by a computer, do you want that computer to be controlled by Google or to be controlled by yourself?

Society is held back so much when the most capable have to live by rules made for the least capable.

Give the knowledgeable the freedom to use their skills. Separately, develop ways to help/protect specifically those that need it.

I have come to the conclusion that both Android and iOS, along with the banking systems, are all doomed platforms.

Even something like GrapheneOS, in theory the best path to security and privacy and liberty, was falling way short even before this latest announcement from Google.

The problem lies partially in the app ecosystems, which embrace spyware and exploiting users (requiring all the worst Google APIs), and partially in governments, which will leverage any centralized organization like Google to gain control (EU chat control etc.).

The solution cannot be just a custom OS or an OS fork. In fact, ecosystem compatibility is toxic and slows down growth of real alternatives. There needs to be some wholly independent and decentralized offering.

The challenge is hardware compatibility and core services like digital IDs. Most apps should be solved by using a website instead.

These issues are especially important because the future is increasingly digital. Smart phones, smart glasses, smart watches, VR glasses, smart homes, and even brain implants. I don't want to live in a future where I'm either left behind or my whole life is controlled by Google/Apple/the government/etc.

The “use a website instead” angle doesn’t really work for a lot of things, and given the impermanence of websites these days, is actually a major point of potential failure.