I actually upgraded off cycle due to the satellite SOS feature. Including the hardware and 2 years of service was impressive. The new watch was also exciting hitting a segment that was previously unaddressed by any prior Apple Watch.
And the move to 5nm for the A14 (sampling since 2019) will yield more chips per wafer. Either way, Apple is very forward looking on supply chain and has been planning this for a decade. Remember when they owned the majority of the nand market due to long term supplier contracts?
For vendors using metal it could be seamless. There would also be gains had through ML and neural engine in image, video and audio processing. Not to mention dedicated video hardware decode. Time will tell, but I don’t see adobe being punitive there. They make money on software subscriptions and are already bringing native photoshop to iOS.
I suspect that for every customer they lose for someone needing to boot natively they will gain more than one from performance, cost and form factor flexibility enabling much more desirable machines. Batteries add both size and weight so you can get thinner and lighter and still have a functional keyboard.
I believe this will enable new form factors given PPW and higher performant systems free of power and thermal constraints on desktop. It may take some time, but I think this will lead to significantly greater long term sales and market share. Apples lead is rather significant in this space and the only computer with that soc will be a Mac.
Pencil does work with iPad and sidecar which is a much better experience for editing vs what would amount to a very small Wacom tablet on the trackpad (vs effectively an iPad sized Cintiq).
I was excited to follow the original scaled composite work with Burt and spaceship one (winning the X Prize) but time has passed and stage reusability appears to be a better long term solution than a carrier solution. I think space ship 2 will meet a similar fate against blue origins approach with new Shepard and of SpaceX decides to sell space tourist spots in dragon 2. You need to try different approaches to find what works and the industry should be thankful for these experiments!
I think this is great and will encourage the industry to do the same to compete. Of course, not aircraft will have this and it doesn't replace maintaining LOS but more situational awareness the better. Eventually UAVs and manned aircraft need to share the same immediate airspace and this is a step in that direction.
It's difficult to evaluate these systems by looking at individual failure cases. Yes, manufacturers must learn from these and improve the systems; however, it's not clear what would have happened with no assistance system in use. Ideally we substantially reduce the total number of incidents. It's difficult to see incidents humans could have easily prevented happen (and these get a lot of press) but is it a greater good or greater harm? I think these systems are inevitable and will continue to improve safety for everyone on the road (not just Tesla, but all the driver assist options). Humans are poorly suited to drive vehicles--they don't have a sensor suite well suited for that or sufficient situational awareness. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in...
I also find the comments more valuable and often reference a better version of the article so my path is:
title-->comments-->article (often a better link or summary than the original).
Really interesting to see everyone's responses. Do you know if there is a survey capability in HN for these types of things? I may revisit the thread later and aggregate the results too if others would find that helpful, but this might be nice as a native Ask HN feature. I suppose I could have just linked to a poll but there is value is in the comments vs the results too.
Agreed, it would also be very interested to see how this compares to other siding alternatives rather than simply wood vs treated wood (stucco, stone, steel, aluminum, vinyl etc.)
I think the hyperbolic language when looking at costs of development should be avoided. Telsa did not burn through cash that quarter; they invested it and there has been real progress made with that investment. The automobile industry is very capital intensive. Would the author say Apple burned through cash developing a new iPhone or Amazon a new fulfillment center? I do not consider the floor analysts are setting in the $30-50 range credible. Tesla has real market advantages and if sold would support a much higher price point to another auto manufacturer. The big auto companies have had years to compete, model 3 has real sales volumes relative to it's market segment and there is still not a single car that offers specifications similar to those models available for 5 years. The original work on PEM and battery have not bee replicated and are not trivial.
This is an old article but still very applicable today http://www.paulgraham.com/startuplessons.html For the products that failed, did you follow those steps? What is the main cause of the failures (any commonalities between them)? I would say don't give up, but also look critically and have mentors look at the failures so you don't repeat your mistakes.
I agree, this will fade with the news cycle. Boeing has made considerable errors but their customers want the plane as it saves them money for retraining. If they have solved the engineering issues (and with this hot spotlight one would hope that is the case) this should end up being a bump in their long history. With this said, I still thing the general outrage at their handling of this is well deserved and the second crash should not have happened if they were focused more on safety and less myopically on their bottom line.
Apple has had a difficult time with its project titan vehicle program and scaled it back to a primarily software (autonomy) effort. I can't see the companies or cultures meshing well and it seems more likely a major auto manufacturer would acquire it vs a tech company.
