Just price, I'd say. AMD / Intel are used to a certain margin on their products, and the low barrier to entry to create ARM CPUs, and fierce competition from giants like Broadcom, keeps margins very thin in this market.
The original smart phones like the Nokia Communicator 9110i were x86 based.
AMD previously had very impressive low-power CPUs, like the Geode, running under 1-watt.
Intel took another run at it with Atom, and were able to manage x86 phones (eg: Asus Zenphone) slightly better than contemporary ARM based devices, but the price for their silicon was quite a bit higher than ARM competitors. And Intel had to sink so much money into Atom, in an attempt to dominate the phone/tablet market, that they couldn't be happy just eeking out a small sliver of the market by only being slightly better at a significantly premium price.
I don't think it is price. Intel has had a bigger R&D budget for CPU designs than Apple. If you mean manufacturing price, I also doubt this since AMD and Intel chips are often physically bigger than Apple chips in die size but still slower and less efficient. See M4 Pro vs AMD's Strix Halo as an example where Apple's chip is smaller, faster, more efficient.
I have not seen any evidence that Apple's chip is smaller, faster and more efficient.
Apple's CPU cores have been typically significantly bigger than any other CPU cores made with the same manufacturing process. This did not matter for Apple, because they do not sell them to others and because they have always used denser CMOS processes than the others.
Apple's CPUs have much better energy efficiency than any others when running a single-threaded application. This is due to having a much higher IPC, e.g. up to 50% higher, and a correspondingly lower clock frequency.
On the other hand, the energy-efficiency when running multithreaded applications has always been very close to Intel/AMD, the differences being explained by Apple having earlier access to the up-to-date manufacturing processes.
Besides efficiency in single-threaded applications, the other point where Apple wins in efficiency is in the total system efficiency, because the Apple devices typically have lower idle power consumption than the competition, due to the integrated system design and the use of high-quality components, e.g. efficient displays. This better total system efficiency is what leads to longer battery lifetimes, not a better CPU efficiency.
The Apple CPUs are fast for the kind of applications needed by most home users, but for applications that have greater demands for computational performance, e.g. with big numbers or with array operations, they are inferior to the AMD/Intel CPUs with AVX-512.
You say you've never seen evidence that Apple's chips are smaller, faster, more efficient but you confidently proclaim that Apple CPU cores are typically bigger on the same node.
Where is your source?
There's plenty of die shots showing that Apple P cores are either smaller or around the same size as AMD and Intel P cores. Plenty of people on Reddit have done the analysis as well.
Qualcomm has a massive "value add" because they own the modem. As well as a doom stack of patents on all things cellular.
You need a modem if you want to make a smartphone. And Qualcomm makes sure to, first, make some parts of the modem a part of their SoC, and second, never give a better deal on a standalone modem than on a modem and SoC combo.
Sure, AMD could make their own modem, but it took Apple ages to develop a modem in-house. And AMD could partner with someone like Mediatek and use their hardware - but, again, that would require Mediatek to prop up their competition in SoC space, so, don't expect good deals.
Yeah, I noped-out when I saw eBay's writeup on tariffs owed by the buyer (not paid by the seller):
"Shipping carriers or US Customs usually charge $5–$30 in processing fees. Add the item price, import fees, and processing fees to estimate your final cost."
Not something I'm doing for a $5 item... I'll sit back and wait until the Supreme Court finds the tariffs are illegal, and the Fed has to pay every cent back to the businesses, suddenly sending the US spiraling into the biggest budget deficit in history.
Tariffs do not always 100% immediately get passed on to buyer.
If there's a $100 product you'd like to purchase and there's a 100% tariff, it won't be $200.
That product was made abroad, let's for $20. So the tariff should be $20, not $100.
The US-based owner will go to the supplier, say they're getting squeezed by tariffs and first they'll try to see what they can do to recategorize the tariff, or negotiate with their supplier to absorb some of the expense. Let's say that got it down to $15. The owner still doesn't want to increase costs by 15%, so they'll hold off for a while and absorb, and then eventually maybe increase 5-10 and absorb further; perhaps eventually going the full stretch - maybe not.
Squeezing the supplier may work in the short term, especially for goods already ordered, and produced, which can't be sold elsewhere.
But in the short-medium term it creates uncertainty for the supplier. (The on / off / on nature of these tariffs doesn't help.) For some goods this means suppliers will develop new markets, or will adjust prices up for American purchasers.
For example, say I have an orange farm. Say I have been selling to the US for ages. Simple, reliable sale, no need to look for other customers.
This year there's turmoil. We take a hit because US buyers need a discount (or might cancel the order.) OK, I'll take the hit. But I'll also put out feelers for other markets for next years crop. Maybe Saudia Arabia is looking. Maybe Europe is looking. Next year, do I develop those relationships, or do I reserve my crop for my US buyer?
Tariffs are not necessarily the problem. They are an important long-term tool used to support local production. Uncertainty though is a huge problem- it's easier to sell elsewhere.
> tariffs are surely paid by the buyer, not the seller.
The US has declared import tariffs are to be paid by the importer/shipper, not collected from the end purchaser after... The opposite of the rest of the world.
If you look through eBay, at items coming from China, you'll see most are noted as:
Import fees: Includes import fees
This item includes applicable import fees—you won’t pay anything extra after checkout."
So they are being paid by the seller/importer/etc.
It seems to be a rare exception that you'll see the seller is not paying the tariffs:
Import fees: Import fees due prior to delivery
Due to US customs policies, the buyer of this item will need to pay import fees to the shipping carrier prior to delivery.
I expect nearly all foreign sellers have increased their prices to cover the tariffs. However, there are items selling for less than eBay says an individual will be charged in fees, so it's not just a you-pay-or-I-pay thing. Either eBay is exaggerating, or sellers are finding a way to get a better deal.
It's a minefield for eBay buyers who likely won't notice the footnote means their $5 purchase will cost them $20+ in fees. They now have something else to lookout for that doesn't show up in the table of search results. Something only in a small note on the item's product page. Something that might mean significant extra cost if you aren't careful when shopping.
I actually expect quite a lot of smaller foreign sellers have just stopped bothering trying to sell to the US, because the price plus the hassle isn't worth it. Large companies of course still will, with some price increase.
> Knowingly downloading CSAM is very likely illegal.
Put CSAM in a banner ad, and arrest everyone who was served that ad?
Post a CSAM photo behind plexiglass on a wall in a public space, and arrest everyone who walks by and glanced at it?
Just how stupid do you think lawmakers, judges, prosecutors, and police are? People get arrested for paying for, or sharing CSAM, not just stumbling on a website that might have something questionable. It is illegal to possess, but just loading a website is hardly possession... If it was, all of Facebook and Google's content moderators would be facing life-sentences.
> Just how stupid do you think lawmakers, judges, prosecutors, and police are?
Very! Unimaginably so! A friend of mine from Germany received a GIF that contained ONE FRAME of CSAM from someone in a group chat, Whatsapp auto-downloaded it into the gallery, something auto reported it and a month later, cops showed up to take away all his electronic devices. This is apparently a thing people do there, like americans SWAT livestreamers. I think it took over a year for them to return his devices. He had to pay for a lawyer and buy a new phone and laptop. He wasn't charged with anything, but because the report was automated, there wasn't even anyone to sue for a false report.
There is no such thing as not to sue anyone. Police can squeeze and lie as much as they want, but there are laws about the abuse of power, false police reporting, obstruction of justice. But it will be expensive as effectively you are going to the court against a state.
Also of course there is a person somewhere behind a keyboard who wrote the software which flags, correctly or incorrectly, files. Their name (Thorn) is kept strictly away from any public testimonial with NDAs with police, because eventually there will be class action lawsuits against them in the USA.
The thing is, it was technically a correct report. One frame of that gif did correpond to a known piece of CSAM (presumably they use some kind of perceptual hashing). The facts that 1) the gif was clearly a sick joke (he described it as a slow motion bullet shot from a movie, landing in something/someone and then flashing the one frame, presumably the intention being "haha, get shot with the child porn bullet"); 2) it was only one inconsequential piece, not a whole collection; 3) it was downloaded automatically from a group chat... are not in scope of the "did this user just upload CSAM to our servers" function (from what I understood, it was triggered by the picture being backed up to Google Photos or Apple's equivalent).
These are all things that, in a functioning system, the police officer receiving the report would take into account. If it's a first report, diaregard. If it's a second, check the file name that was also presumably in the report, see it's a Whatsapp folder and disregard it. If it's a third report or there are multiple pieces, get a warrant to run a CSAM scan on the person's device, go to their apartment, run it, see there's nothing else, close the case. If it's a clear "prank", start investigating the person who sent it.
But since the police are, in general, trigger happy lunatics, you get a full raid instead. And since computer forensics is hard and doesn't pay well, the investigation took many months instead of an afternoon. The fuckup was squarely on the law enforcement side, as well as in the law itself.
>(he described it as a slow motion bullet shot from a movie, landing in something/someone and then flashing the one frame, presumably the intention being "haha, get shot with the child porn bullet")
That's the slippery slope nature of these laws. For sure a CSAM is "out there" and easily acquired. And now it some sort of toxic, radioactive content that destroys systems, corporations, and most importantly, invididuals if weaponized.
I suppose these people with good intentions, seeking to wipe CSAM off the face of the earth with religious fervor ... I suppose they never realized that such thing as a troll exists on the internet who will gladly point their fervor as the troll pleases like a firehose of seething
This is one good reason we should not tolerate our devices auto-snitching on us to the police. Any tool can be weaponized. The legal system has a presumption of innocence, but it grinds painfully slowly, and the mere investigation can be extremely disruptive, even assuming they don't find anything further to pursue once they turn the eye of Sauron upon you.
Quite stupid, actually. Stuff like CSAM is not to be messed around with. Having it in your cache is considered possession by police forces, even if the judge won't convict you if you can explain it. Even if the police doesn't come after you, it's the exact point in almost every jurisdiction where someone else's content suddenly becomes your problem, legally speaking.
You won't go to jail or life most of the time if you can explain how or why, but there are extremely strict rules around CSAM that you need to deal with. One of those is "don't look at it unless absolutely necessary". For AdGuard, I doubt this use would qualify for "absolutely necessary". Even police forces use dedicated software that doesn't keep too many copies around, and restrict how many people are allowed to look at the screens for screening computers.
The people applying mass censorship are using CSAM as a weapon. It'd be unwise for AdGuard to give them the extra ammunition by (admitting to) checking the CSAM content themselves.
Furthermore, if the complaint has merit and the content linked does contain CSAM, there is some pretty bad shit out there. I'm not prepared to look at pictures of raped babies or tortured children but I know full well that that content is out there on the internet.
Arrests aren't the only way a company can be harmed. Being flagged or investigated is enough of a legal burden and reputational hit that it could be catastrophic. "Stumbling" is not a part of any network protocol. Over a network, viewing a link is indistinguishable from downloading its contents.
Illegal to possess, and you would have accessed it to view content that is illegal to access as well?
The people who do this as part of their job do so under strict supervision, legal guard rails AND mandatory counselling. Which happens to include a number of content moderators.[0]
There's another reason: the criminal justice system is structured in such a way that it requires material evidence to prove someone is guilty and punish them. It would be unacceptable to send an innocent person to prison, and you can't prove that someone has merely viewed content.
We need a rule that people who haven't had to deal with the police and courts need to shut up about how police and courts work.
Even if nobody involved commits a crime and just does their job resonably well, getting your apartment raided, all your neighbours seeing that, your coworkers hearing about it, having to pay for a lawyer, losing all your electronic devices for months if not years and having to buy new ones, not being ablo to make proper plans because you never know when they might throw another court date at you...
But more often than not, they don't do their job well. They're sloppy, indifferent, they don't really understand computers or technology... You might get convicted just because a judge doesn't understand what downloading actually means.
And then you also get the ass-covering. They spent all this time and effort, but now it looks like you're innocent. Their bosses would be pissed, maybe you could even sue them. So they do their best to make even the smallest and dumbest charges stick. They look for other potentian crimes. They threaten you until you take a plea deal. They dissect and twist everything you said. Just so they don't have to admit they made a
"Innocent until proven guilty" might be true in the most technical sense. But being innocent doesn't help when your entire life is thrown upside down, everyone you know thinks you're a criminal, you're spending thousands on legal costs...
> the Range Rover [...] tries to be the best possible version of an SUV.
"And this is kind of realistic for Range Rover ownership because when you have one of these, they're so unreliable that you have to have a second vehicle."
Yep, this reinforces my point. Range Rovers try to maximize scope, often at the expense of scalability and reliability. Same with Bentleys, the Concorde passenger jet and the Harrier fighter jet.
Plenty of people stop somewhere to get hot breakfast and coffee every day. If you also need something that can't set in your car all day (e.g. milk) that would be a second trip in a day.
Whether that's convenient or not depends on location... If it's right off your route to work/home, a stop may only add a couple minutes to your drive.
Chiming in to complain that a good, working solution to a problem just doesn't happen to solve ALL PROBLEMS is just banality or perhaps pedantry. Unless it was also proposing an alternative that might do better...
Braille on money also doesn't help dyslexic quadrplegics with dysesthesia... Checkmate.
I think that's an extremely ungenerous read here. The thread is about how different size bills and different color bills solve a lot of problems with people who have low vision. Adding braille solves the same problem, but for a subset of people that different sized/color bills solves.
If you have a good, working solution that's widely used worldwide, and someone suggests a worse solution that works for fewer people, it's more than fair to point out that "your solution is worse, less common, and works for fewer people".
Your last sentence is a low effort strawman, I'm not sure why you felt it necessary to include.
As a Canadian, I'm amused to hear this because it is basically true as a first approximation.
Random factoid - Canadian coins ($2, $1, $0.25, $0.10, $0.05, $0.01 (withdrawn)) come in almost the same denominations as US coins ($1 (uncommon), $0.05 (rare), $0.25, $0.10, $0.05, $0.01), and they are the same diameter and thickness, but maybe having different weight and magnetic properties. It's kind of scary that Canadian coins are essentially state-sanctioned counterfeits of US coins.
Another weird thing is that the National Basketball Association (NBA) has 29 American teams and 1 Canadian one... making it more of an international basketball association. I think another sports league with "national" in its name also crosses national boundaries.
If you take a random person and teleport them between a random mix of Canadian and US cities, I think they'll find it hard to tell the two countries apart. The primary language is English, the accent is the same, the streets and buildings look the same, people watch/listen/read much of the same media, and so on.
One party trick that I practice when traveling in America is to not volunteer information about where I'm from, and see how long I can blend into groups of people and conversations until someone suspects something or asks a direct question. Needless to say, I can last pretty long, and even debated things like US federal politics. The internal diversity of people within the US (e.g. skin color, accent, beliefs) really helps an outsider like me blend in.
Also note that there is a one-way relationship going on. Canadians know more about the US than what's necessary for life. Heck, even the state broadcaster CBC will put out entire news segments (e.g. 5 to 20 minutes) on US-specific issues. Knowing about the US - whether it's major companies, cities, TV series - is unavoidable to Canadians. But ask the average American about anything related to Canada, and you'll likely get a blank stare.
However, some of the differences between Canada and the USA include: Guns(!), personal and state violence, healthcare, social safety net, political polarization, income, prestige, number of big companies, French language, atmospheric climate.
> If you take a random person and teleport them between a random mix of Canadian and US cities, I think they'll find it hard to tell the two countries apart. The primary language is English, the accent is the same, the streets and buildings look the same, people watch/listen/read much of the same media, and so on.
On the surface, I agree 100%. Dig deeper and the differences are stark.
Years ago I came from Australia to work at a ski resort in the US. I stayed 6 months, had a great time. At the end I went to Canada to see a friend. After 30 minutes in Canada I felt more at home than after 6 months in the US.
Canada is a friendly, kind, gentle place, everything the US is not.
I’ve now lived in Canada for 20 years, been to almost every province and territory. I’ve also and travelled extensively in the US (40+ states). It’s a fun place to visit and parts are spectacularly beautiful, I do not want to live there. Now I have a young daughter it’s doubly so.
Yes, I’m generalizing and using broad strokes. The thing about generalizations is they’re usually right.
Canada feels like being surrounded by friends and family, I have no doubt the expression “dog eat dog” comes from the US.
As I was driving my daughter to daycare this morning I saw the garbage men. A road worker filling in pot holes, a person holding the stop sign and someone digging a hole in the road. They all have the same healthcare I do. Canadians all pay taxes, and work together for the betterment of everyone, and it shows.
It’s a community, a society people are happy strangers have a good standard of living.
The US is a competitive sport where everyone is competing with everyone else. Driving past a lowly person holding a stop sign it’s just literally “sucks to be them” and no ability to help or do anything about it.
There are 30 million people in the US without health insurance. There are none in Canada. Medical issues are the number one cause of bankruptcy in the US. In Canada there are none.
Obviously health care is just one example, and there are plenty of kind and friendly people in the US. But living under conditions like that is not a happy, healthy society of people that care about strangers and care for each other. It’s a “look out for me” place.
The more I go there (I was down there last week), the more I see the vast majority of Americans live in a scarcity mindset. Of course the high GDP means not scarce in terms of consumption, but in terms of things that actually impact quality of life day to day.
Sounds like a lot of projecting... The U.S. doesn't have single-payer healthcare therefore it's a dystopian hell-scape where everyone hates each other.
> “sucks to be them”
There are large swathes of the US where I would be shocked to hear anyone express that sentiment. There are other parts where I would not be shocked, but then the US is 10X bigger than Canada so you do get to pick and choose which version you'd like to be part of.
Of course healthcare is just one example of many, and as I said originally, yes I’m generalizing a very large country and population.
I’m giving my observations over 20 years in Canada and exploring the us extensively.
> so you do get to pick and choose which version you'd like to be part of.
Thank you, you have proved my point better than I did.
You literally just said “there are parts of the country where my fellow countrymen, People who make the country function, have families , hopes and dreams have a crappy life. I just choose not to be there”
That is my point exactly. The us is not a community where people care for each other. They just ignore or move away if they can.
Presumably that's "I think another sports league with "national" in its name also crosses national boundaries." in the OP.
With the recent conclusion of the "World" Series, my mind actually went to the Blue Jays first, but they're in the American League. At least that one's technically correct.
Even with just a 6% tax, you end up with prices that need 4 digits of precision after the decimal (e.g.: $11.6494). That issue extends over a wide range of pre-tax/input prices, so one would have to DRASTICALLY change the prices so that the price including 6% tax rounds to even a penny, let alone a nickel.
While you could calculate a price that (after tax) would round a single item to the nearest nickel, it's completely IMPOSSIBLE to do so with unknown numbers of multiple items.
In addition, tax rates in the real world aren't just single-digit percentages. They have precision of 1/1000th of a percent, making such a calculation much more challenging.
Arizona: 10.725%
Hawaii: 4.712%
Minnesota: 7.875%
etc.
And sales tax rates can be different from ONE CITY BLOCK TO THE NEXT, so a company with more than one location would find it IMPOSSIBLE to advertise their prices at all.
With a tax rate as precise as 1000ths of a percent in many jurisdictions*, you'd need extreme precision on the price tag (e.g. $11.798625), OR you need to substantially overcharge for tax (rounding up the tax to the penny or nickel on each individual item, instead of on the total of ALL items).
And sales tax rates can even be different from ONE CITY BLOCK TO THE NEXT.
The original smart phones like the Nokia Communicator 9110i were x86 based.
AMD previously had very impressive low-power CPUs, like the Geode, running under 1-watt.
Intel took another run at it with Atom, and were able to manage x86 phones (eg: Asus Zenphone) slightly better than contemporary ARM based devices, but the price for their silicon was quite a bit higher than ARM competitors. And Intel had to sink so much money into Atom, in an attempt to dominate the phone/tablet market, that they couldn't be happy just eeking out a small sliver of the market by only being slightly better at a significantly premium price.
reply