Where do you draw the line? Apple Silicon as a high powered replacement for Intel as a concept was all under Cook's tenure, from initial investigations to product ship. By your logic where would we stop the attribution?
Draw the line for Apple silicon? With Jobs. I'm not sure what was unclear about my previous post. Jobs introduced Apple silicon. That's my logic. Jobs began the SoC design for iPhones and he began the high performance CPU initiative with the purchase of PA Semi. That's my logic.
Putting their CPUs in laptops wasn't an incredible initiative from Cook either, it was basically an inevitability that mobile class cores would eventually intercept high end CPUs for performance after Dennard scaling ended, and it was widely predicted by many Apple watchers even before their own core came out, but particularly after the first ones came out.
Some thought it would be sooner, some later. If Intel hadn't shat the bed for a decade, and/or if the PA Semi team and subsequent Apple CPU team turned out to be in the Samsung or Annapurna tier, then it might have taken many more years, or they might have switched over to an ARM Ltd core IP. But the trajectory for how things turned out was set in motion squarely by Jobs. Who brought up the CPU group and introduced the first high performance Apple CPU silicon.
It certainly wasn’t unanimous. I generally hold my doctors to a higher ethical standard given they’re dealing with people’s lives. Maybe you have lower standards.
Here’s what Fil-C gives you that -fbounds-safety doesn’t:
- Fil-C gives you comprehensive memory safety while -fbounds-safety just covers bounds. For example, Fil-C panics on use after free and has well defined semantics on ptr-int type confusion.
- -fbounds-safety requires you to modify your code. Fil-C makes unmodified C/C++ code memory safe.
FWIW, I worked on -fbounds-safety and I still think it’s a good idea. :-)
So basically, that kills the whole argument about Apple Silicon efficiency.
Which I know is almost a lie, since it's quite efficient but if you really hit the SoC hard you are still getting around 3hrs battery life at most. Of course, that's better than the 1,5hrs you would get at best from an efficient x86 SoC but it makes the advantage not as good as they make it out to be. You are going to need a power source, a later sure, but that's just a problem displacement.
Are you just making up numbers? Power efficiency is relative, and the argument about Apple Silicon efficiency was a thing since M1 and you have to compare it to the competitors at the time. Of course Intel have caught up a lot of ground.
But even if your numbers weren't pulled out of your ass, a 3hr vs 1.5hr difference is a *100%* improvement. In what multiverse is that not absolutely phenomenal?
What model do you want to run locally to do "real work"? I can run qwen3-32B on my Mac with a decent TPS.
And no battery powered device is going to last long running large AI models. How is that an ok thing to bash Apple about? Because they don't break the laws of physics?
I really don't see how your reply made a new point. What the other person was responding to was that even if you were to construct your positive sum game, you will have politics because reward distributions are not equal. The very fact that some people receive bigger bonuses, RSUs or promotions and others don't is an unequal distribution such that politics will be there.
Say everyone is compensated with equity. The goal is to increase share value. Yes every action that each employee takes in theory is going to be toward that goal because that's how they're incentivized through the compensation. But in reality you do a performance review and you have to decide how much some person contributed to the overall result, which isn't possible to objectively determine. And in that space of perception and subjectivity is were politics, or as I call it social arbitrage opportunity, exists.
