capasicum

elijahg said:

I notice the price is the same as before, so rather than dropping the price due to cheaper CPU and increasing accessibility for people, they're just absorbing the extra profit. Great, that's the Cook Way. 🙄

Well, this MacBook Air has more powerful CPU than my 2015 MBP. It also has 40% faster GPU (integrated) than my discrete GPU and 50% of the performance of the top discrete GPU in the latest MBP.

All of that in a lower power envelope, no fan, and with extended battery life.

So, actually, it is a massive upgrade compared to both the previous generation of MB Air and any other laptop on the market.

When did other companies gave 2-3 time faster computer at a lower price?!? If anything, such an upgrade from any other vendor will come with significant price increase.

You can think about it the other way around - there is a significant price cut for this class of performance.

The very idea that Apple should lower the price because they pay less for the silicon is as absurd as it can get for a very simple reason - the costs are structured in a very different way.

When Apple buys CPUs from Intel, the price includes research, development and production costs + margins.

When Apple pays TSMC for printing their SoCs, the research & development costs are obviously not included.

For that reason, pricing comparisons of the kind - Intel CPU is $200, Apple pays TSMC $70, so Apple adds $130 to their profit - are absolutely idiotic and inadequate.

backstab said:

Kind of confusing. Is Apple suggesting that the guy is lying? Or was he, in fact, able to break into the phone; or not?
Which is it?

The article is quite clear, actually. What happens is that when flooding the the device with PIN numbers, not every PIN is checked by the device. Some PINs are skipped, although it seems that all of them are checked. So, there is a non-zero probability that the correct PIN is skipped.

konger said:

Apple has never innovated, it only steals or buys ideas from other companies (cough Xerox, yeah, your first breath was stolen).

I think you will have to read way more on the history of IT. Apple is the only company to get the Xerox technologies as part of a business deal. Everybody else stole it, starting with Microsoft.

Actually, there are quite a few talks by Alan Kay on Youtube, I suggest you watch them all. What he says in brief is that all those technologies currently attributed to Xerox were 10-15 years in development, way before Xerox PARC was even established. Take a look at the Augmented Research Center (ARC) and what has been developed there.

The rest of the claimed thefts are as real as that one.

hittrj01 said:

therunningvm said:

The 2 models do not make any sense to me. Why are they releasing 2 models at the same time?
Or are they going to release the 2 in 2017?

More than likely they will release the Apple Watch 2 and keep the original around at a discounted price, much like they do with iPhones and iPads. They might have different watch band configurations, but I would put money that's how the lineup will look for the Christmas season.

And, similar to iPhone SE, they could upgrade the CPU of the first watch to increase its usable life span.

cnocbui said:

So has Apple fixed the Keychain vulnerability in OSX yet?  Last I heard they basically said it was too hard.

alxsbr said:

I don't know what's the point of this article… everybody knows there is not even a single android user with FDE turned on.

It is turned on by default on Samsung flagship phones.

This constant 'holier than thou' shit from DED is both tiresome and stupid.

Actually, your links just prove the point of the article. Macs don't have a secure enclave since they use Intel CPUs. Thus, they are in the same position as Android and all other OS are. Software implementation that is prone to being exploited.

Yet, macOS, Linux, even Windows get regular software updates to close vulnerabilities. Not so with for most Android devices.