[HN Gopher] Apple AMX instruction set (M1/M2 matrix coprocessor)
___________________________________________________________________
Apple AMX instruction set (M1/M2 matrix coprocessor)
Author : rostayob
Score : 185 points
Date : 2022-09-05 10:06 UTC (12 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (github.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (github.com)
| scarface74 wrote:
| What is the "non proprietary" alternative and why should Apple or
| it's users be forced to wait on consensus?
|
| This is the same reason that Apple wasn't saddled with the
| horrible PC "standards" before USB became ubiquitous.
|
| Not to mention even today, Bluetooth is a shit show outside of
| the Apple ecosystem as far as handoff an ease of pairing.
| stephc_int13 wrote:
| Apple Bluetooth is not much better than run-of-the-mill
| Bluetooth, to be fair.
|
| Bluetooth is one of the rare cases where they should have come
| up with something different and better.
|
| (Just kidding, Bluetooth is an abomination and a very weak
| protocol)
| dang wrote:
| We detached this subthread from
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32723422.
| viraptor wrote:
| One of the non-extreme solutions is publishing the doc for the
| extension + explicit usage grant on any related patents. They
| don't need to go full standardisation route before the first
| release. It would still be a proprietary extension under their
| control, but not a haha-screw-you proprietary.
| aseipp wrote:
| ARM literally doesn't allow public instruction set extensions
| by compliant license holders. Apple is presumably only
| allowed to do this precisely because they do not sell or
| otherwise offer their CPUs with any other software, with any
| other documentation, which hides this implementation detail
| entirely from all users, and I assume this allowance is
| worked directly into their specific ARM Architecture License.
|
| Apple themselves designed probably half (or more) of the
| ARMv8 standard themselves. I assume they are pretty aware of
| what avenues are available to them in this case.
| samwillis wrote:
| Apple are religious about interoperability within their
| platform, making it easy and reliable. If they were to do as
| you suggested with some of their proprietary tech, there will
| be products that implement it badly. To the user they would
| have no idea who's at fault, and would probably blame the
| tech in general, damaging Apple.
|
| Standardisation, in combination with certification to use the
| "label", ensures that people developing on top of their
| innovation do so well enough that it doesn't damage the
| brand.
|
| (Somewhat less relevant to an instruction set, and not
| something I particularly agree with)
| viraptor wrote:
| This doesn't really make sense. There are already systems
| implementing connections to Apple stuff badly due to lack
| of documentation. The situation would only improve with the
| publication. For example we already have most of m1
| hardware reverse engineered in Asahi - that's not going
| away. We've had things like air drop and earbuds charge
| state RE'd too. We'll get amx libraries as well soon.
| scarface74 wrote:
| "Apple's stuff" is there hardware + operating system.
|
| The benefit of buying "Apple stuff" is the integration
| between their software and hardware ecosystem.
| viraptor wrote:
| Yes, and... That seems irrelevant to the point of my
| post?
| scarface74 wrote:
| It's relevant because
|
| > For example we already have most of m1 hardware reverse
| engineered in Asahi - that's not going away. We've had
| things like air drop and earbuds charge state RE'd too.
| We'll get amx libraries as well soon.
|
| You're trying to use Apple hardware with non Apple
| software.
|
| If you put Windows on an x86 Mac, do you expect the same
| experience (or battery life) that you get if you're
| running MacOS on an x86 Max?
| stephc_int13 wrote:
| >interoperability within their platform
|
| Isn't this called an oxymoron?
| Jcowell wrote:
| No I've seen platforms where interoperability is non
| existent but it's still a platform.
| samwillis wrote:
| Quite right, I should have said "ecosystem" really. And
| obviously this comment, about Apple in general, was a
| little off topic as a reply to the parent. I know what I
| was trying to get at, but didn't convey it well in this
| context. Oh well.
| nicoco wrote:
| You managed to be down voted while praising Apple on
| Hackernews, that's quite the achievement.
| scarface74 wrote:
| Nah, HN very much downvotes posts showing that maybe a
| company that controls the entire ecosystem may give users a
| better experience than a "consensus" of industry experts with
| an "open" standard.
| semi-extrinsic wrote:
| > Not to mention even today, Bluetooth is a shit show outside
| of the Apple ecosystem as far as handoff an ease of pairing.
|
| I see people mention this, and I don't get it. I have a bunch
| of el cheapo Bluetooth audio adapters (car/garage/bathroom),
| one Bose headset, one Jabra headset, one chi-fi headset, one
| JBL speaker. They just work.
|
| Very occasionally on my Android phone I have to pull down the
| system tray, click the little arrow next to Bluetooth and
| select the device I want. But in those few ambiguous situations
| there is no tech apart from clairvoyance that would allow the
| phone to know my intentions without my input.
| tpmoney wrote:
| Are you using multiple devices with each bluetooth product,
| or are you using multiple bluetooth products with a single
| device? In my experience the latter is mostly the same across
| Apple and non-apple. Where Apple's experience seems to be
| noticeably better is using an apple bluetooth product with
| multiple devices.
|
| For example, I recently tried to switch from some airpods to
| a pair of Anker liberty earbuds. I have 4 devices that I
| regularly use the headset with, an iPhone, an iPad a macbook
| air and a work laptop. The airpods switch almost without any
| effort on my part between my personal devices, connecting
| automatically to whichever of the devices I am currently
| interacting with when I take them out. On the occasions when
| that doesn't happen, selecting them from the bluetooth menu
| connects them without issue. For my work laptop, because it's
| not registered with my personal accounts, the airpods don't
| connect automatically but after pairing them once during the
| initial setup, when I select them in the menu, they connect
| reliably and quickly.
|
| By contrast the anker earbuds apparently are only able to
| store connection information for two devices at a time. While
| I can pair them to all 4 devices, when I take them out, they
| will always connect to whatever the last device they were
| connected to, and if I connect from the bluetooth
| menu/settings on the device, they will only connect to the
| second to last device they were connected to. For the other
| devices, they will attempt to connect and eventually timeout.
| Even though the device still has the earbuds registered, the
| only way to connect it to device 3 or 4 is to delete it from
| the device, and go through the entire re-pairing process, at
| which point the earbuds will stop connecting to what is now
| the 3rd to last device they were connected to.
| drewg123 wrote:
| That's odd. I have a pair of airpods pro shared with an m1
| mbp, and an iphone. The airpods seem to randomly connect to
| 1 of the 2 devices, almost never the one I want them to
| connect to. This is the same experience I've had with other
| BT devices.
|
| The only good BT experience I've had is my Bose QC35ii
| headphones, which can connect to multiple devices at the
| same time.
| scarface74 wrote:
| Seems kind of limited and you have to use the "Bose app"
| for complete functionality. Are there apps for the Apple
| Watch? My AppleTV? And I still have to pair them to each
| device and they only switch between the "two most recent
| devices".
| scarface74 wrote:
| I have a Mac, an iPad, an iPhone, an AppleTV and an Apple
| Watch.
|
| If I'm on my iPad and playing something and put my AirPods
| Pro in my ear, sound automatically gets sent to my AirPods.
| The same happens with my Mac and iPhone. It doesn't happen
| with the AppleTV since multiple people might be watching.
|
| Also once I pair my headphones to one device on my account,
| it's automatically paired to all of my devices. The initial
| pairing process for my phone and iPad is just open the case
| the first time and a pop up shows up.
|
| On the other hand, if I'm on my iPad watching a movie and get
| a call on my phone, it switches over automatically. It then
| switches back when I go back to my iPad. If I take one AirPod
| out of my ear to gear someone, video pauses automatically on
| whichever device I'm using.
|
| Then there are the little touches like being able to control
| headphone options like noise cancellation and special audio
| from my phone, iPad, or TV, seeing battery remaining and
| automatically being registered with Find My.
| semi-extrinsic wrote:
| I get the same on Android on almost all those things. The
| only thing I don't have is whatever "Find My" is. For
| controlling headphone options I have a couple of dedicated
| apps on my phone, but if you have to touch that more than
| once per month it's a clear symptom of bad headphone
| design. (For example the Jabra headset I use at work has a
| dedicated physical button for toggling noise canceling.)
|
| The upshot is that I suffer zero vendor lockin. I bought
| Airpod equivalents from Aliexpress, the FIIL T1 Lite for
| $35. They are little marvels of Chinese engineering that do
| everything I need and actually sound great - they
| frequently outperform $100+ earbuds both in reviews on
| blogs and according to casual Reddit commentary. Since I
| only use them when out and about, it's not possible to
| experience any audio quality upgrade unless I sacrifice
| practicality and go with some closed-back over-the-ear
| cans.
| scarface74 wrote:
| You get almost the same thing as long as you use third
| party apps, still have to change settings manually, etc?
| Do you also have to install the same app on your phone,
| tablet, watch, streaming device and your computer?
|
| When you pair to one device, do they automatically pair
| to all of your devices?
|
| All Apple headphones work as standard BT headphones on
| non Apple devices. I fail to see any "vendor" lock in.
|
| As far as price, you can also pick up a pair of $50 Beat
| Flex headphones that have most of the same functionality
| with Apple devices.
|
| I assure you those $35 "AirPod equivalents" don't have
| the noise cancellation, spatial audio, transparency mode,
| or microphone quality that the AirPods Pro have.
| smoldesu wrote:
| I get the same thing out-of-the-box. I get tap-to-pair,
| noise cancellation, spatial audio, transparency mode
| _and_ a better microphone than the Airpods (can use a
| higher-quality codec than AAC). Settings stay on-device,
| too.
|
| Airpods were a neat party trick maybe... 5 years ago?
| Wireless audio isn't complicated nowadays though, I've
| tried at least a dozen Bluetooth headsets that embarrass
| the Airpods Pro (often at a lower price point).
|
| The last thing I want to do is stop people from buying
| overpriced headphones though. If Airpods make you happy,
| then by all means, buy them. You're mostly paying a
| premium for iCloud integration though, which I'd frankly
| pay extra to avoid.
|
| Shit though, if you want proof that Airpods are a
| downgrade from regular headphones, just compare the audio
| quality: https://youtu.be/N6Y_Q7RYmmY?t=360
| scarface74 wrote:
| You can pair your headphones seamlessly to seven devices
| without unpairing? Yes I have a phone, tablet, watch,
| computer and two AppleTVs - one in the bedroom and one in
| my home gym.
| smoldesu wrote:
| Yep. Multipoint connection will tether to any availible
| devices, and then switch between whichever ones are
| actively playing. Works like a charm, don't even need an
| AppleTV to pair it with my display.
| semi-extrinsic wrote:
| I only have to use a third party app to change the
| settings on the headset (like equalizer and noise
| canceling level). For my devices I have no need to change
| these more than a couple of times per year, at most. For
| my Bose QC35 I think I've never touched the app after
| first configuration. Those settings are stored in the
| headset, so once I've set them they stay the same
| regardless what device the audio streams from.
|
| The vendor lock-in is by definition there if there are
| any special Apple features. If there is no vendor lock-
| in, there is neither any special Apple-exclusive magic
| features that justify the price premium?
|
| I know my FIIL buds don't have active noise canceling.
| They are IEMs and give about 20 dB passive noise
| reduction which is more than enough. The microphone
| quality is decent, but for any longer calls I use my
| Jabra which has a proper mic.
| doikor wrote:
| > If I'm on my iPad and playing something and put my
| AirPods Pro in my ear, sound automatically gets sent to my
| AirPods.
|
| And for me apple decides to do these switches on its own
| without my input at times when I do not want this to
| happen. I have not found a way to disable this yet.
| scarface74 wrote:
| https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT212204
|
| But is there ever a time that you said "I really wish I
| had to pair my headphones to each of my devices
| individually and had to adjust settings by clicking on a
| button on my headphones and decipher the various beeps"?
| cebert wrote:
| This is really annoying in a family household. I use my
| AirPods connected to my phone when I am cleaning the
| house, cutting the grass outside etc. My son and daughter
| love to watch videos on the iPad. My AirPods randomly
| switch to the videos they're playing on the iPad without
| me ever asking for that to happen. It irritates me that
| Apple does this.
| jshzglr wrote:
| Can't you just make a separate profile on the iPad for
| your kids.
| aaaaaaaaaaab wrote:
| What kind of videos are they watching?
| peyton wrote:
| You can disable this feature on just your iPad from the
| Bluetooth settings.
| vbezhenar wrote:
| Apple did not even bothered to implement proper codec support
| for their flagship airpods. When I enable mic, audio quality
| goes to zero. Where's their proprietary standards when they're
| needed?
| Reason077 wrote:
| Wow, Apple's own headphones have that issue as well? I
| thought it was just my Sonys that did that!
| gruez wrote:
| That's the case for all bluetooth headphones. The reason is
| that when microphones are enabled, the codec gets
| downgraded to some crappy one (presumably to free up
| bandwidth because there are two audio streams?).
| Reason077 wrote:
| The issue isn't really bandwidth - it's about the host
| and device agreeing on a suitable codec.
|
| On a Mac, my Sony headphones will fall back to the SBC
| codec if the mic is active. Fine for voice, but
| music/video/gaming sounds terrible. On Android, however,
| they will negotiate bi-directional AptX or some similar
| modern codec, so the quality is much better.
| sudosysgen wrote:
| Fun fact though, on Linux you can force high-bitrate SBC
| on almost any headphone to get almost the same result as
| AptX.
| srrr wrote:
| SBC and aptX have the same quality (at the same bit
| rate). You are most likely talking about SBC XQ and aptX
| HD: http://soundexpert.org/articles/-/blogs/audio-
| quality-of-sbc... & https://habr.com/en/post/456182/
| pohl wrote:
| Isn't that more of a bluetooth issue? You're switching from
| one audio stream to two. Each now has only half the available
| bandwidth, at most.
| vbezhenar wrote:
| That's bluetooth issue indeed but Apple could have
| implemented some proprietary extensions when both devices
| are Apple ones.
| pohl wrote:
| I see. So they're damned if they embrace a standard, and
| they're damned when they don't.
| umanwizard wrote:
| I agree which is also why I'm very disappointed that the EU is
| forcing Apple into the absolutely horrible USB-C standard.
|
| People can buy android phones if they want to. Why remove
| choice?
| scarface74 wrote:
| I wouldn't go that far. While I don't agree with the EU
| forcing the USB-C "standard"[sic] on private companies, it's
| time for Lightning to die. Apple is already moving to USB C
| on iPads with only the low end iPad still being Lightning.
| cesarb wrote:
| > the USB-C "standard"[sic]
|
| There's no reason for scare quotes, USB-C _is_ an official
| standard. IEC 62680-1-3:2021
| (https://webstore.iec.ch/publication/66588) is USB-C, and
| IEC 62680-1-2:2021
| (https://webstore.iec.ch/publication/66589) is USB PD.
| scarface74 wrote:
| Okay, still the same thought experiment. Pick up a random
| USB C cable. Now tell me:
|
| How much power can it deliver?
|
| Does it support data and at what speed?
|
| Does it support video over USB C?
|
| If I bought a cheap USB power only 5W cable and got the
| hypothetical iPhone 15 Pro Max with USB C support that
| could charge faster with a 20W cable, do 10Gps data
| transfer and video over USB C, wouldn't I still end up
| throwing away the USB C cable I got with the $100 Android
| phone contributing to eWaste? Isn't that the entire
| argument about forcing Apple to support USB C?
|
| What happens when I buy a cheap USB C cord from the
| convenience store? Will it support "standard USB C".
| tadfisher wrote:
| If that USB-C cable only supported 5W, then it does not
| meet the spec and must not carry USB-IF branding. At a
| minimum, USB-C cables must support 20V/3A and optionally
| support 20V/5A.
|
| I get you on the rest of the issues, because the
| simplified USB-IF branding (Hi-Speed, SuperSpeed,
| SuperSpeed+, etc) crucially _isn 't printed on the cable
| itself_. Moreover, the constant renumbering of the
| standard means manufacturers often forgo the consumer-
| facing branding and market devices/cables with the latest
| standard, which means nothing regarding what capabilities
| a device/cable supports.
|
| USB-IF needs to be better at enforcement, for sure. In
| the meantime, I just just Thunderbolt cables for
| everything that needs advanced capabilities and pack-ins
| for everything else.
| scarface74 wrote:
| How do you explain to the average consumer that even
| though all of these cords have USB C ends;
|
| - the white cord that came with my old MacBook Pro 13
| inch
|
| - the little cable that came with my Beats Flex
|
| - the cable that came with my Anker battery.
|
| - any random overpriced USB C cable that you pick up from
| the convenience store or the bodega.
|
| Are really USB C cables and that none of them support
| data?
| sebzim4500 wrote:
| Clearly Apple doesn't think the USB-C standard is so horrible
| since they are using it everywhere else in their ecosystem.
| tchaffee wrote:
| Some things deserve to be standardized. Electrical plugs
| being a great example. Removing choice is a feature. WiFi
| standards are another example. It's tough to understand
| exactly where to draw the line, but making computer cables
| all standard seems like a worthy goal. I can see a future
| when any device from displays to external drives to your
| phone can all use the same cable. That would be a nice
| feature where removing choice would be the better outcome.
|
| Out of curiosity, what's horrible about the USB-C standard?
| scarface74 wrote:
| Thought experiment, you pick up a random USB-C cord, now
| answer a few questions.
|
| How much power can it deliver?
|
| Does it do data and if so, at what speed?
|
| Does it support video over USB and if so, at what
| resolution?
| tyrfing wrote:
| The superior experience with an Apple branded Lightning
| cable and charger: 5 watts, USB 2.0 speed, and no. Now
| that's progress!
| umanwizard wrote:
| 20 watts, actually.
|
| But anyway, the point isn't whether lightning is better
| than USB-C. It's about whether USB-C is good enough that
| we want to accept being locked to it for all time. If
| Apple wants to invent a better connector, they can't,
| assuming this European regulation goes through.
| tchaffee wrote:
| > for all time.
|
| That's a strawman. Standards evolve and new standards
| come along. 2G -> 3G -> 4G -> 5G. Well look at that.
|
| > If Apple wants to invent a better connector, they can't
|
| Not true. If Apple is willing to share, they can invent
| all they want and propose a new standard.
| scarface74 wrote:
| So they have to wait on a consensus. Wait for all vendors
| to agree. Wait for a government body to approve the new
| standard and _then_ they can implement the new "standard"
| and still have it be as convoluted and half ass like USB
| C?
| smoldesu wrote:
| They didn't have a problem doing that with Thunderbolt, I
| don't see why it would become a problem _now_ all of the
| sudden.
| scarface74 wrote:
| They didn't wait on industry consensus. They basically
| worked with one company - Intel - and put the port on
| Macs. They definitely didn't have to wait on the
| government to give them permission.
| tchaffee wrote:
| > So they have to wait on a consensus. Wait for all
| vendors to agree.
|
| Yes, just like 5G. Interoperability is sometimes worth
| the tradeoffs so a nuanced view is needed instead of a
| reductive "standards bad, competition good".
| scarface74 wrote:
| Or on the other hand iMessages is far better than SMS and
| RCS.
|
| Then you have Google who alone introduced three
| incompatible messaging apps in one year. It must be part
| of the promotion process for Google SWEs and PMs to
| introduce a new messaging app.
| kmeisthax wrote:
| 1. The same or more power than Lightning
|
| 2. The same or faster than Lightning
|
| 3. Either none or higher quality than Lightning
|
| I don't need to see the specific cord - Lightning only
| carries USB 2.0 and compressed video streams through a
| weird proprietary protocol. The base spec for USB-C
| cables is USB 2 and low-speed charging - i.e. equivalent
| to Lightning for everything but video out.
|
| The main complaint about USB-C that people have is that
| there's no consistent labeling for the cheap-o base-spec
| cables versus the ones that actually have high-speed data
| lanes in them. This doesn't matter for the USB-C vs.
| Lightning debate, since charging and data will be the
| same or better and video requires a special cable or
| adapter in either case.
| WhyNotHugo wrote:
| Much as I like USB-C this is far from accurate.
|
| My JBL speaker will only charge with a USBA -> USBC
| cable, but not with USBC->USBC.
|
| I've a couple of cables that will charge headphones or
| other devices, but won't show data devices (like an
| external SSD, webcam, etc).
|
| I've some cables that won't charge my laptop, however,
| other cables on the same charger do charge that same
| laptop.
|
| Maybe some of these devices and cables are non-compliant,
| but they're what we see in the real world, regardless of
| what the spec says. USB-C is a mess. I still need
| distinct USBC cables, and need to remember which ones can
| charge which devices.
| scarface74 wrote:
| 1. Some USB cables only support power up to 5W
|
| 2. Not all USB C cables support data some or power only.
|
| 3. But USB C is suppose to be a "standard". I can't just
| assume any USB C cable is going to work with either my
| portable USB monitor or an iPad Pro that has a USB port
| philistine wrote:
| Industry bodies vary in quality; USB-IF is notoriously
| bad at UX. They focus on providing opportunities to
| participate in their newest standard. That's why you end
| up with monstrosities like renaming USB 3.0 to USB 3.1
| Gen 1 and adding USB4 2.0 instead of simply calling it
| USB5, like it should.
|
| Cables and docks, once again to give opportunities to
| participate to as many players as possible, only have to
| implement few elements of the standard to be branded.
|
| Apple and Intel basically used the Thunderbolt standard
| to get rid of this mess. Thunderbolt 3 and 4 are forcing
| implementation of all the optional elements of USB to be
| branded. So if you want to have a sane experience with
| USB-C, stick to TB ports, docks and cables.
| tpm wrote:
| You are right, but the current topic is standardising on
| USB-C for power delivery. So in that case only the first
| question applies. And funnily enough that question is the
| same for every power cable and plug. Even simple wall
| plugs and extension cords can burn out if a device draws
| too much power.
| scarface74 wrote:
| How is the "current topic" only about power delivery.
| What happens when I plug my hypothetical iPhone with
| USB-C using a "standard" USB-C cable into my computer to
| transfer my 4K video?
|
| What happens _today_ if I pick up any random "standard"
| USB-C cable and try to charge an iPad Pro 12 inch or any
| other iPad that has a USB-C port, try to connect it to a
| video source that a USB source or connect it any USB-C
| device?
| tchaffee wrote:
| > How is the "current topic" only about power delivery.
|
| Because that's what the law covers. All phone *chargers*
| must be USB-C compatible. And they must all interoperate.
| You must be able to buy a phone without the charger, so
| you can re-use your old one.
|
| https://single-market-
| economy.ec.europa.eu/sectors/electrica...
| scarface74 wrote:
| How does that help reduce ewaste if you still don't force
| standardization on the type of USB C cable being sold -
| ie a cable that supports 100W PD, video over USB C, and
| data? What are the chances that the $100 Android phone is
| going to come with a cable that supports the "standard"?
| What are the chances that your random convenience store
| is going to be selling cords that support "the standard"?
|
| And your quoting the law showing that the government also
| didn't know enough to consider all of those questions
| proves how incompetent the government is at writing laws
| concerning technology.
| tchaffee wrote:
| I answered your question, and now you've moved the
| goalposts... but I'll answer some more.
|
| > How does that help reduce ewaste if you still don't
| force standardization on the type of USB C cable being
| sold - ie a cable that supports 100W PD, video over USB
| C, and data?
|
| The vast majority of people don't need that cable. Most
| people plug their cable into the wall socket (oh dear
| another government standard!) and recharge their device.
|
| > And your quoting the law showing that the government
| also didn't know enough to consider all of those
| questions proves how incompetent the government is at
| writing laws concerning technology.
|
| I think this is a competent start. Industry was asked by
| the EU to self-regulate on this, and industry failed. I'm
| glad the government stepped in and in a few years I'll be
| able to grab any random USB-C cable to charge a wide
| variety of devices. Progress marches on.
|
| In general, the EU has been very successful at writing
| laws around technology. Look at the mobile phone
| networks. I can travel anywhere in Europe and it just
| works. And my roaming charges are also kept lower thanks
| to laws. Lots of great technology laws out there if you
| could neutrally assess things instead of always reaching
| for "government bad".
| scarface74 wrote:
| Most people would be okay with a 5W cable to power a huge
| battery on the large iPhones? Try this, plug in a large
| phone with a cable that only supports 5W and has 20%
| battery life. Now start a video call using Zoom. Guess
| how long the your phone will last.
|
| The EU didn't enforce a law to have an industry standard
| for cell phones, a private consortium of company's did.
|
| I'm not "moving text goalposts". The explicit aim of the
| EU wanting to enforce a standard was to reduce eWaste. If
| you have a chord that doesn't support data, power
| delivery at an appropriate wattage and video - something
| that the iPads that have USB C already do and the
| hypothetical iPhone will, you will still be throwing away
| cables just like I threw away all of my "standard" USB C
| cables that came with various devices and got some that
| supported 100W PD, 10 GBps data and video over USB C.
|
| The 100 section 11 chapter GDPR that did nothing but give
| the world cookie pop up's shows the incompetence of EU
| law makers better than anything.
| tchaffee wrote:
| Read the law more carefully. Chargers, cables, and the
| specified devices must all be interoperable, and they
| cannot slow down the rate of charging. You seem to be
| wrongly assuming that the current state of the art will
| not change with the new laws.
|
| > The EU didn't enforce a law to have an industry
| standard for cell phones, a private consortium of
| company's did.
|
| You're wrong. I worked in the EU for mobile phone
| companies helping make them compliant with some EU
| regulations. Just for example, EU law specified an
| industry standard for roaming charges. Roaming charges
| were absurd before the law and different in every country
| - to the point that everyone feared answering a call
| while in another EU country. Sometimes companies succeed
| at good standards without government regulations.
| Sometimes they fail and the government should step in.
|
| > I'm not "moving text goalposts".
|
| You did. You asked why the discussion was focused on
| power. I answered that. Goal achieved. That wasn't good
| enough for you after you learned why the discussion was
| focused on power. So you moved the goalposts and came up
| with a new complaint. That's exactly what moving the
| goalposts look like.
|
| > The 100 section 11 chapter GDPR that did nothing but
| give the world cookie pop up's shows the incompetence of
| EU law makers better than anything.
|
| You're wrong again. I use those cookie pop-ups to refuse
| everything but the necessary cookies. That's not
| "nothing". GDPR has done so much good in protecting our
| privacy and forcing companies like Google and Facebook to
| adapt. Excellent.
| scarface74 wrote:
| Mandating roaming charges is completely different than
| mandating 4G and 5G protocols.
|
| You keep focusing solely on "charging" when USB C powered
| phones and iPads that already support USB C also carry
| data and in the care of the iPad data using the
| "standard" for video over USB C. Seeing that the EU
| didn't mandate any of they shows why the government has
| no business involved in technical standards.
|
| The "goal" of the EU regulation was to reduce ewaste. The
| proposed regulation fails because you still have to
| replace your cable if you want your phone to transfer
| data.
|
| Google and Facebook didn't have to adapt their business
| at all because of the GDPR. You want to see what an
| effective policy for increasing privacy looks like? One
| private company - Apple - introduced a pop up that gives
| users the ability to opt out of tracking and everyone
| including Facebook that lives or dies by ads announced
| billions in reduced revenue.
| tpm wrote:
| What happens today if I pick up any random USB-C and try
| to charge my non-Apple phone is that it charges, in some
| cases fast, in others slow. I don't have to carry around
| a special cable. I would expect the same from Apple, once
| they implement it. As for the data stuff, I'm sure they
| will manage somehow.
| scarface74 wrote:
| Try your definition of "slow" on a iPhone 12 Pro Max
| using a cord that only delivers power over 5W. Better
| yet, try charging an iPad 12" Pro (that does have a USB C
| port) with a USB C cable that can only do 5W. Now try to
| use that same "standard USB C" cable to charge a 16 inch
| MacBook Pro.
|
| Of course that standard cable is not guaranteed to
| support data at all.
|
| So much for a "standard".
| tpm wrote:
| iPhone 12 Pro Max has smaller battery than my 5y old
| Nokia, so I would not worry about that.
| scarface74 wrote:
| And how long do you think it would take to charge?
| celsoazevedo wrote:
| > What happens when I plug my hypothetical iPhone with
| USB-C using a "standard" USB-C cable into my computer to
| transfer my 4K video?
|
| Your phone will charge and you'll be able to transfer
| your 4K video. Isn't lightning still limited to USB 2
| speeds? If so, then it won't be any slow.
|
| USB-C isn't a problem for Macs and iPads that use it, so
| not sure why it would be a problem on the iPhone.
|
| (I didn't understand your second question.)
| scarface74 wrote:
| Not all USB-C cords support data and those that do
| support data support data at different speeds. Some USB-C
| cords support data but don't support video over USB-C. I
| travel a lot and soon will be doing the "digital nomad"
| thing.
|
| I travel with this portable monitor:
|
| https://a.co/d/aFeMMK1
|
| You can plug it into a computer and get video and power
| with one USB C cable. But you have to have the "right"
| USB C cable. Video over USB-C is "standardized". But not
| all cables support the standard.
|
| Ironically, you can have the same issue today. Some cheap
| third party Lightning cables don't support data and they
| don't work if I plug up my monitor to my Mac for a third
| monitor using Duet (I can't use the Mac built in
| capability because of an incompatibility with corporate
| mandated malware).
|
| The iPad Pro should also work with my monitor. But still,
| you have to have the right "standard" USB C cable. You
| would have the same problem With a hypothetical future
| USB C iPhone.
|
| I'm assuming you didn't know about how some USB C cables
| don't support all of the standards. If _you_ didn't know
| - someone who posts to HN and I assume knows more about
| technology than the average person - what chance does the
| average consumer have or the people making laws to force
| USB C to be the standard?
|
| That is not meant to be an insult. I thought all USB C
| cables were the same until two years ago when I got my
| first modern MacBook for work.
|
| I'm not saying Lightning is better than having a USB C
| port on the iPhone that supports the maximum power
| possible on the iPhone, with higher speed data rates and
| video over USB C. Apple agrees and that's why almost all
| iPads now have USB C ports.
|
| But that doesn't mean that you will just be able to pick
| up a random USB C cable and it just works.
| gruez wrote:
| >Isn't lightning still limited to USB 2 speeds?
|
| It supports USB3
|
| https://www.apple.com/shop/product/MK0W2AM/A/lightning-
| to-us...
| [deleted]
| Tuna-Fish wrote:
| How is USB-c horrible?
| scarface74 wrote:
| Before I standardized on the cables below, I had USB-C
| cables in my laptop bag that:
|
| - were power only up to 100W. But couldn't do data.
|
| - could do power up to 60W and data at USB2 speeds. But
| they couldn't do video over USB-C. I have a USB-C powered
| portable display that can do power and video directly from
| my laptop.
|
| - a USB-C cable that can do power, video, and data. But I'm
| still not sure how much data and power it can deliver.
|
| - a few smaller USB-C cables that came with my Beats
| headphones and my Anker battery. I don't know what they can
| do.
|
| I finally threw away all of my cables besides my MagSafe
| cable and standardized on these for mobile devices (cheaper
| and not as thick).
|
| https://a.co/d/7e3gH9u
|
| But these are truly "universal".
|
| https://www.amazon.com/dp/B093YVRHMB
| [deleted]
| strangemonad wrote:
| The physical form factor of the "type C" connector is great
| but that a good example of how broken things are is that
| anyone can stick that type of connector on pretty much
| anything - might be usb 1, might just be power delivery,
| might be usb 3.2, might be real thunderbolt, might be
| thunderbolt-esque paie framed over usb 3.2 messages, this
| is before even getting into the wild world of hdmi 1.4 and
| display port over usb 3. This mess is assuming that the
| vendor implemented things correctly or is using a compliant
| controller chip, reality just gets even worse.
|
| A simplistic interpretation:
|
| Because the consortium wanted to get everyone on board,
| they allow pretty much any part of the spec to not be
| complied with. In theory there are various profiles the
| should be adopted but in practice that hasn't happened.
|
| What happens when I plug in a c-type plug? You just can't
| say... and I mean you REALLY just can't say. Will high
| power delivery and hdmi work (I'm looking at you broken
| Nintendo switch usb-c implementation), will you get
| thunderbolt packets wrapped over usb 3.2? Will you even get
| high speed? Is the cable active or passive? Will this cable
| give me high speed data? Will this >3ft cable give me high
| speed charging or just _silently_ stay at 5v and ~1amp
| because the resistance on the middle pin is too high on
| that particular cable.
|
| To placate many vendors who wanted to because to produce
| cheap crap and flood online stores, many parts of the spec
| do this all without active protocol handshaking and simply
| fail silently.
| gruez wrote:
| >The physical form factor of the "type C" connector is
| great
|
| At least for phone charging, I find it worse than
| lightning. It's way too loose (whereas lightning is
| snug), and I'm always worried about the plastic bit
| sticking out on the female side is going to break.
| WhyNotHugo wrote:
| > Not to mention even today, Bluetooth is a shit show outside
| of the Apple ecosystem as far as handoff an ease of pairing.
|
| I wish my iPhone's bluetooth worked as well as my Linux laptop.
| I've no idea why Apple gets so much praise for it's bluetooth,
| it's not "the worst", but it's not very good either. Is Android
| really _that_ bad?
| scarface74 wrote:
| Are you using Apple or Beats headphones? If not, BT is going
| to suck regardless.
| coder543 wrote:
| Doesn't M2 add support for SVE2 as well?
| [deleted]
| aseipp wrote:
| No, there are no publicly available chips with SVE2 support at
| all; the closest you can get is SVE1 on Graviton 3 from AWS.
| dougall wrote:
| Yeah, M2 doesn't. But I think there are some phones using the
| Snapdragon 8 Gen 1 that have SVE2.
| aseipp wrote:
| Oh wow, that's quite impressive. I assume they're just
| using a 128-bit datapath like NEON? Thanks for the
| correction.
| dougall wrote:
| Yep, still 128-bit.
| sufiyan wrote:
| I don't get why other chip manufacturers don't go this same
| route. For example AVX is done on the same core that also
| supports integer math. Many companies have a separate GPU but AVX
| seems to always come prepackaged.
| guipsp wrote:
| There is a cost to moving data to another chip(let). I think
| this is the main reason
| viktorcode wrote:
| Qualcomm most likely will go this route (proprietary
| instructions) as this now officially blessed by Arm. I'd bet
| we'll see that in their 2023 chips.
| ndesaulniers wrote:
| Isn't ARM suing Qualcomm?
| 16890c wrote:
| So what software actually uses this / what compiler supports this
| if it's neither supported nor documented by Apple?
| garblegarble wrote:
| Applications use it via a higher level interface: Apple's
| Accelerate framework[1]
|
| 1: https://developer.apple.com/accelerate/
| peaslock wrote:
| Speaking of which, is anyone aware of example code using the
| LSTM? I've been trying to get this to work, but there seems
| to be information missing e.g how to setup the input/output
| descriptors and how to manage input data: https://developer.a
| pple.com/documentation/accelerate/bnns/us...
| Someone wrote:
| It's just like with private APIs. It's functionality that they
| don't know (?yet?) whether they want to support it in the
| future, but they do provide calls that use them indirectly.
|
| There also could be bugs in the hardware that they carefully
| programmed around.
| scarface74 wrote:
| Why do people act as if "private APIs" (which is somewhat of
| a contradiction in terms) is nefarious? An API is something
| that is publicly documented that the vendor promises to
| support where the behavior won't change.
|
| Raymond Chen has been blogging for close two decades about
| all of the hacks that MS had to put into Windows because
| vendors used undocumented APIs.
| grishka wrote:
| There are two ways of dealing with apps using private APIs
| though: Microsoft indeed goes out of its way to maintain
| backwards compatibility, sometimes at the expense of
| sanity, but Apple breaks stuff -- this API is private for a
| reason, you had to reverse engineer how to call it, and you
| knew your risks when you decided to use it, so if your app
| breaks, you get to keep both pieces.
| KerrAvon wrote:
| Yes, and I suspect this is informed by Apple historically
| having APIs that were much more open and prone to what we
| would know call abuse by developers -- but was then just
| cleverly taking advantage of the environment -- during
| the Apple II/early Mac era.
| matthewmacleod wrote:
| I agree that people tend to get a bit too worked up about
| it, but I don't think it's a contradiction in terms as such
| - an API is really just _any_ interface where two distinct
| pieces of software interact in some way. It doesn't need to
| be formally described or published or anything like that,
| and the idea of a private API is pretty common generally.
|
| Where it starts to piss people off though is where those
| private APIs are used to allow first-party software access
| to platform features that third-party software doesn't get.
| For some applications that's not so bad, but in the case of
| a general-purpose operating system platform or similar it's
| kind of an anticompetitive move and we should complain when
| companies do it.
| scarface74 wrote:
| Once you make an API public, no matter how badly designed
| it is, you have to support it forever.
|
| I would much rather an API be private, let the company
| dog food it and let their internal employees use it, and
| then make it public. It also gives them the freedom of
| completely changing the internal workings.
|
| The extensions API and the Siri integration for third
| parties are great examples. The Siri intent based API is
| very usable and reminds of the Amazon Lex based API - the
| AWS version of the consumer Alexa skills SDK.
| michelb wrote:
| Here are the docs:
| https://developer.apple.com/documentation/accelerate
| kennywinker wrote:
| Presumably first party software that qualifies. I'm thinking
| siri, or their AR stuff. It's possible it's also used by
| something like CoreML where there is a public facing framework
| that utilizes this under the hood.
|
| I have no special info, these are just guesses.
| zeristor wrote:
| Is this a repost the other day, I thought that was too good have
| been missed out.
|
| Also I'm keen to see if this 60Gb.a-1 near field wireless data
| link for Apple Watches for diagnosis will be able to be used in
| some sort of MagSafe/usb for iPhones.
| altairprime wrote:
| (This isn't a post about near-field, Watches, MagSafe, or USB;
| perhaps this comment was meant for another post?)
| [deleted]
| saboot wrote:
| Is there a comparison with other fast cpu methods of matrix
| multiplication?
| corsix wrote:
| https://www.corsix.org/content/contrasting-intel-amx-and-app...
| compares this with Intel's AMX
| dougall wrote:
| On M1, for single-precision, one AMX P-unit is ~1.64 TFLOPs,
| one P-core is ~102 GFLOPS. So ~16x core-for-core. But you have
| four P-cores for every AMX P-unit, so more like 4x. And for
| double-precision that shrinks to 2x (~410 GFLOPs to ~51GFLOPs).
|
| (This is a simplification that doesn't include the E-cores, nor
| the AMX E-unit, but their contribution isn't huge. I suspect
| AMX throughput may have doubled on M2, but I haven't verified
| that.)
| Firadeoclus wrote:
| That's a pretty huge amount of processing power hidden away!
| Are these experimentally confirmed performance numbers?
|
| So this is 16x16 single precision fused multiply-adds at
| 3.2GHz with a throughput of one per clock, right? (16 x 16 x
| 2 x 3.2e9 = 1.6384e12) And does using fp16 quadruple
| throughput again? That would put AMX well above the GPU for
| fp16 matrix multiplication! (2.6 TFLOPs fp16/fp32 for 8-core
| GPU, 128 multiply-add per core at 1.278GHz)
|
| How does it compare in terms of power, can it sustain 3.2GHz
| indefinitely or does it hit power/thermal limits fairly
| quickly?
| dougall wrote:
| Correct, yep. These are theoretical numbers, measured in
| cycles from a P-core (with no loads/stores), real-world
| performance tends to be a little less (~93%): https://twitt
| er.com/stephentyrone/status/1455665595677085697
|
| FP16 only doubles throughput rather than quadrupling.
|
| I haven't looked at power/thermals, so I can't really
| comment. (Though it's possible it's always running a bit
| under 3.2GHz, since I was measuring in clock cycles - that
| might be part of the 7% difference.)
| moonchild wrote:
| IIRC I measured something like 10-50% performance difference
| (don't remember exactly, but it was somewhere in there), vs a
| reasonably well-regarded blas implementation. This was for
| dgemm specifically; I don't know if the story changes for
| smaller floats.
| saboot wrote:
| Not too bad, I do scientific computing and choose
| Intel/Nvidia as their APIs for accelerated math operations
| are documented and supported for developers.
|
| I've been paying attention to what Apple has been pushing
| with their M1/M2 chips, and I'm pretty tempted to try it out,
| but unless these features are documented and supported I
| can't feel comfortable writing programs relying on them.
| mhh__ wrote:
| The API apple wants you to use is documented and presumably
| is here to stay.
|
| That doesn't help if there's some edge case you'd need
| access to the raw ISA but still.
| Someone wrote:
| Also, BLAS is part of that interface (https://developer.a
| pple.com/documentation/accelerate/blas)
|
| Of course it is a black box in that you can't
| (realistically) try and speed it up. You still run the
| risk of Apple's priorities being different from yours.
| kergonath wrote:
| OTOH the interfaces are standard. Using Accelerate
| instead of the standard BLAS is just a compiler switch.
| kergonath wrote:
| They are not supported directly, but you can ue them
| through the Accelerate framework, which has an optimised
| BLAS and FFT implementations (amongst many other things).
| bfgoodrich wrote:
| SGEMM / DGEMM using AMX2 (the first M1 has AMX2. The A14 has
| AMX1) is approximately 100% faster than the same running with
| NEON, which is already a specialized vector math system.
| sposeray wrote:
| ladyanita22 wrote:
| Which compiler would be required for this
| (https://github.com/corsix/amx/blob/main/aarch64.h)?
|
| I understand the limitation is not at the OS side, as nothing can
| be done there, but at the compiler-side (I mean that the Apple-
| supplied compiler doesn't compile against the AMX instruction
| set, so you'd need a compatible one that, I understand, doesn't
| exist).
|
| Or is it just undocumented and you can actually get it to work
| with a Standard xcode and macOS installation given the headers
| provided?
| dagmx wrote:
| Compilers wouldn't target it. You'd get to it via
| https://developer.apple.com/documentation/accelerate
| dougall wrote:
| This header works with standard Xcode/macOS, by taking
| advantage of inline assembly in a slightly-cursed way (turning
| register names into numbers and encoding the instruction
| itself).
| corsix wrote:
| Slightly cursed is how I roll. I would like to know where the
| trick first originated from though (I found it at
| https://github.com/yvt/amx-rs/blob/main/src/nativeops.rs#L22
| rather than inventing it de novo)
| ndesaulniers wrote:
| This happens often in the Linux kernel to continue to
| support older assemblers for newer instruction set
| extensions.
|
| The x86 retbleed mitigation uses .inst to trick the
| hardware instruction decoder...different instructions are
| encoded/run than what is speculatively decoded.
| stephc_int13 wrote:
| Knowing the history of Apple an open standard and given their
| success with their implementation of the ARM64 ISA, it is
| unfortunately highly probable that they will follow the
| proprietary route once again.
|
| Indeed, they are already doing it, we're lucky they weren't in a
| dominant position when TCP/IP or HTML were invented.
| GekkePrutser wrote:
| Well, they _did_ create OpenCL.
|
| But yeah it's ages ago and they've kept everything proprietary
| since then :(
| Terretta wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thunderbolt_(interface)
|
| What I liked about this is that Apple realized it makes more
| sense for someone other than them to develop and supply tech
| for something like Thunderbolt, co-engineered with Intel for
| Intel to do it (and eventually open it, royalty free).
| dweekly wrote:
| Re: the "lucky" remark: they certainly tried! Remember
| AppleTalk and HyperCard?
| KerrAvon wrote:
| This is seriously ahistorical revisionism. There was no
| universal networking standard in the 1980's, and there
| certainly wasn't anything universally suited for networking
| on microcomputers, especially not with the zero-configuration
| usability that Apple wanted. Remember that TCP/IP was largely
| a plaything for academics until the early 1990's, and Apple
| had to create zero configuration and multicast DNS before
| they could consider deprecating AppleTalk for use on small
| LANs.
| stephc_int13 wrote:
| I think that if Apple had been as powerful as they are now
| back then, they would have pushed "their" tech more
| aggressively and refused to support "inferior" protocols.
|
| Really, we've been lucky that it was Microsoft and not
| Apple that was the dominant player in the 90s.
|
| And I am far from a Microsoft fanboy, but I think that
| Apple hubris has always been there, and their contribution
| have to be mitigated in some way to stay on the positive
| side.
| aseipp wrote:
| There isn't any standard matrix multiplication instruction set
| so there's nothing to standardize over. Machine-learning driven
| instruction sets (of which MM instructions are motivated by,
| but not exclusively for) like this have been generally bespoke
| because the field moves relatively quickly compared to
| hardware. Every vendor generally follows some basic principles
| but the specifics are dependent on the workloads and models
| they expect e.g. quantization or how they expect to split
| models across accelerators. And ARM does not allow public
| proprietary instruction set extensions to ARM cores, one of
| their defining architecture features is that licensees
| literally are not allowed to do this.[1] The only reason Apple
| was allowed to do so in this case is likely 1) They negotiated
| it as part of their AAL (probably for a lot of money) and 2)
| They do not publicly document or commit to this feature in any
| way. It could get deleted or disabled in silicon tomorrow and
| Apple would be able to handle that easily, and in every other
| visible way they have a normal ARM64 complaint CPU core (there
| is the custom GIC and performance counters and some other
| stuff, but none of those violate the architectural license and
| are just IP stuff they chose to work on themselves.)
|
| So actually the thing you're complaining about is prevented by
| ARM themselves; Apple cannot publicly commit to features that
| would fragment the architecture. They don't have to do
| everything identical either, though.
|
| [1] They have publicly said they will allow some future Cortex
| cores to contain custom instructions, but it is quite clearly
| something they're very much still in control over, you won't
| get a blank check, especially considering almost all ARM
| licensees use pre-canned CPU cores and IP. You'll probably have
| to pay them for the extra design work. There are no known
| desktop/server-class CPUs that fit this profile on the current
| ARM roadmap, or any taped out processor, that I am aware of.
| brigade wrote:
| > There isn't any standard matrix multiplication instruction
| set
|
| The Scalable Matrix Extension supplement was released last
| year. Though obviously AMX predates it, having shipped in
| actual silicon 3 years ago.
| msbarnett wrote:
| In addition to being too new, Scalable Matrix Extension is
| for Armv9 - the M1 and M2 are Armv8 architectures
| stephc_int13 wrote:
| History will tell, but I have a bad feeling about "Apple
| Silicon".
|
| They would not use that naming if they intended to support
| the official ARM ISA in the long run.
|
| The only thing that would prevent them for going the
| proprietary route is if they can't.
| skavi wrote:
| Apple Silicon is no different from Qualcomm Snapdragon or
| Samsung Exynos.
| aesh2Xa1 wrote:
| Does Apple license theirs to other platforms?
| kmeisthax wrote:
| No, and given ARM's hostility to Qualcomm's acquisition
| of Nuvia they probably would pitch a fit if Apple started
| selling silicon to third-parties.
| AprilArcus wrote:
| I suspect, given Apple's pivotal role in founding ARM
| holdings, that they have as close to carte blanche with
| respect to the ARM IP as one could imagine.
| komadori wrote:
| Huh, I hadn't realised Apple had been one of the
| investors when ARM Holdings was spun out of Acorn
| Computers. It seems their interest was in the Newton
| using ARM chips.
| catach wrote:
| > They would not use that naming if they intended to
| support the official ARM ISA in the long run.
|
| Given Apple's marketing priorities, my guess is that the
| intent you speak of had zero weight in their naming
| decisions either way. They have no interest in raising the
| profile of ARM chips in general, and every interest in
| promoting their specific chips as amazing.
| AprilArcus wrote:
| > The only reason Apple was allowed to do so in this case is
| likely 1) They negotiated it as part of their AAL (probably
| for a lot of money)
|
| Apple fronted the cash that created ARM holdings in the first
| place, so yes, they invested quite a lot of money (well,
| relative to the other senior partners Acorn and VLSI and
| later investors), and ARM was hardly in a position to tell
| them "no".
| Reason077 wrote:
| > _" we're lucky they weren't in a dominant position when
| TCP/IP or HTML were invented"_
|
| TCP/IP and HTML became dominant _because_ they were open
| standards. Should they have been proprietary, they would have
| floundered and something else would have emerged instead.
| fattire wrote:
| > TCP/IP and HTML became dominant because they were open
| standards. Should they have been proprietary, they would have
| floundered and something else would have emerged instead.
|
| Anyone remember AppleTalk?
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AppleTalk
| rjzzleep wrote:
| I guess people have forgotten, that Webkit came out of KHTML
| from the KDE team and that Apple was a nightmare when it came
| to contributing code back. They just released a huge dump of
| the whole thing.
| klodolph wrote:
| I remember this... it was just a fork. Projects get forked.
| It's unfortunate from some perspectives, but from other
| perspectives you can understand why forks happen.
|
| When you have a long-running fork, especially one that is
| so active, merging it naturally becomes a nightmare. This
| is expected and ordinary.
|
| The Linux kernel gets forked by Android vendors and others
| _all the time._ A lot of the changes never make it
| upstream, for various reasons. At least the story ends a
| bit better for KHTML / WebKit.
| rjzzleep wrote:
| Every single Apple patch to GitHub projects is done by
| the same single indistinguishable user account. This
| isn't just "some long-running fork". It is Apple culture
| to actively prohibit contributions to open source
| projects unless 5 managers sign off on it.
| cma wrote:
| They really don't like people "poaching" their
| employees/wildlife. Remember they illegally collided to
| stop other large tech firms with Apple board members from
| cross recruiting.
| GekkePrutser wrote:
| I think that's collusion not collision :) But probably a
| case of "Damn You AutoCorrect" :)
| KerrAvon wrote:
| No, it's usually just overzealous lawyers. Remember that
| Apple is still a pre-dot-com company and -- like
| Microsoft -- retains vestiges of those attitudes.
| chalst wrote:
| This isn't quite the same thing. Apple are really terrible
| at cultivating open source - more obvious than KHTML is the
| fiasco that resulted from Apple's half-hearted efforts to
| kindle a community around Darwin - but my impression is
| that they have been decent enough with the kind of openness
| that standards processes need.
| jojohohanon wrote:
| I was disappointed in how the Dylan project ended up.
| GekkePrutser wrote:
| Were there ever really interested in Darwin being a
| thing? I've been following Mac closely since OSX and I've
| never seen it getting any limelight.
| pjmlp wrote:
| They don't even remember how vertical integrated they were
| before OS X came to be, how would they remember that?
| KerrAvon wrote:
| I don't get this criticism; this is a case where open
| source _worked_. People complained about it. Apple cleaned
| up their act on it a bit, but still maintained WebKit as a
| fork. And Google forked WebKit when they decided they
| didn't want to play in Apple's sandbox anymore. This is how
| it's actually supposed to work. It gets messy sometimes
| because humans are involved.
| smoldesu wrote:
| ActiveX would like to have a word with you.
| KerrAvon wrote:
| DECnet, Token Ring, Novell, X.25, et cetra, would like to
| have a word with you.
| GekkePrutser wrote:
| ActiveX was never 'dominant' really. It was always a
| duopoly with Java (and in many use cases also with flash!)
| and a pretty niche one at that (corporate software and
| crappy webcams)
| Tijdreiziger wrote:
| South Korea begs to differ:
| https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/08/business/korea-
| internet-e...
| fezfight wrote:
| Yes, that attempt to EEE the web was thwarted thankfully.
| smoldesu wrote:
| Right. If the government hadn't stepped in to encourage
| Microsoft to play nice, we might live in a world where
| "the web" simply means Internet Explorer.
|
| I'm beyond the point of negotiating with the people on
| this website. Apple is due in for exactly the same
| treatment, it's only a matter of time before the US eats
| their favorite crow.
| fezfight wrote:
| If it wasnt clear in my reply, I agree with you.
|
| But as an aside, don't let this site get to you too much.
| There's a lot of arguing for sport that goes on here.
| KerrAvon wrote:
| Look, as someone who was rooting for MS to lose big time
| back then, I would have been happy for that to be true.
| But MS lost through hubris, not the antitrust settlement.
| GekkePrutser wrote:
| > If the government hadn't stepped in to encourage
| Microsoft to play nice, we might live in a world where
| "the web" simply means Internet Explorer.
|
| I kinda doubt that. As soon as Microsoft had a virtual
| monopoly on the browser market, they let IE go stale for
| years. Hardly any feature development, hardly any bug
| squashing. Terrible security. By the time the browser
| choice thing in the EU and the antitrust thing in the US
| happened, the rot had already set in and everyone was fed
| up and yearning for a browser that didn't suck. Google
| drove their Chrome truck right into that gap.
|
| If IE had actually been a decent browser, no amount of
| "choose your browser" screens would have been enough to
| sway people from it. Just like they cling to Chrome now
| because Google is too smart to make that mistake.
|
| PS FWIW I don't like and hardly use chrome but
| technically as a browser it's great, I just don't like
| Google's attitude to privacy.
| aaaaaaaaaaab wrote:
| Instead we live in a world where the web means Chrome.
| How wonderful!
| pjmlp wrote:
| WebAssembly....
| jchw wrote:
| WebAssembly is an open standard and I don't really see
| how it's any bigger a problem than asm.js or obfuscated
| JS already was.
| fezfight wrote:
| Agreed! Would be nice to reverse the tide on that stuff
| though. C'est la vie.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-09-05 23:01 UTC)