Apple Chips For iPads And Intel Chips For Macs: Now, Fight!

Here is an interesting post (Two Guys And A Podcast) concluding that Intel's days are numbered as far as Apple using Intel mobile chips are concerned as Apple continue to push forward with speed on the A-series chips used in iOS devices while Intel seems to be standing still or moving forward at a much slower pace. The post concludes that Apple's how chips should over take Intel's like the Core M chip being deployed in the new Macbook. And when that day cames, Apple will replace Intel chips with its own in Macs.

That is the rational and conventional thinking.  However, I have a different take.  We have all heard the rumors regarding the new iPad Pro that Apple is working on.  It was supposed to unveiled by now.  Obviously, it has not and there are plenty of rumors explaining why that is the case.  My take is that perhaps, Apple is waiting on a new generation of chips that should be unveiled later this year can serve as the heart of the new iPad Pro, much faster than the current A9 in the iPad Air 2 and iPhone 6, that could more effectively compete with the Intel Core M. 

When the iPad Pro comes out, it will make for some interesting choices for consumers.  Apple will let the iPad Pro and Macbook fight it out in the market place.  If you want a laptop, go with the Macbook.  If you want a tablet with multi-touch that may also have the new Force Touch technology, more horse power than the Macbook (though most consumers will not be able to see the difference), and even longer battery life than the Macbook's 9 hours, then the iPad Pro is your choice, not to mention an accessory case that doubles as a keyboard.  Of course, Apple marketing will not pit one device as superior over the other. 

And for the next few generations of Macbooks and iPad Pros, Apple and Intel will leapfrog each other with claims of higher horsepower and greater efficiency.  And even if Apple does fall behind with the iPad Pro and Intel pulls ahead with its chips, Apple can still win in the end because people will have picked the Macbook over the iPad Pro. 

However, from what I'm reading regarding just what Apple's own chips can do versus what Intel's Core M can speed up to for some tasks, this is one area where Intel might have the advantage.  The Core M can go up to 2.6 Ghz if called upon.  No word on how Apple's chips do in this regard.  Having said that, on the low-end, that might not matter in day-to-day mobile computing tasks.  And this is an area where Apple can excel because of the tighter hardware-software integration on the iPad than on the Macbook since Apple did not design the Core M.  This is an area that matters most to people who have decide between a Macbook or and iPad Pro.

For any heavy lifting required, Apple Mac users will go with an iMac, Macbook Pro, or even a Mac Pro. 

Personally, I welcome the Macbook as it is now.  I'm not saying that this is for me. First, I'll have to wait and see what the iPad Pro is like and then there is the fact that I still have a relatiely new (18-month) Macbook Pro that performs beautifully.  My only gripe is my MBP has only 7-hour long battery life.  While it has done and performed as expected, I would not mind an extra couple of hours of battery life. 

The Macbook isn't for everyone.  It isn't for pro's.  Nor is the iPad for everyone either.  I do believe Apple has a multi-year roadmap that is clear and executable under Tim Cook.  We saw the future with the Macbook Air and it'll take a couple more years for us to get to wherever Apple wants to take us in terms of the next stage of mobile computing. It was a great time to be alive when the iPhone came out in 2007 and revolutionize mobile.  It'll be just as exciting in the next few.

Virgin EV Against Tesla, Apple Likely To Go At It Alone

There is plenty of chatter that Richard Branson is up there with Elon Musk as far as space goes but Branson is missing something Musk has and is considering getting into that game:  electric cars.  That in and of itself isn't news.  What I had originally though of, for all of ten seconds, is that maybe Virgin should partner with Apple.  But the more I think about it, the more I believe Apple will likely go at it alone - no deals with Mercedes, MBW, Telsa, or anyone else.

After all, the most likely partner Apple is likely to go with is Telsa and we already know from the poaching war that it is not going to happen. 

However, Branson's entry into the high-end electric car market should be a welcoming move for auto lovers.  Competition.  And that is what Telsa lacks even as it continues to innovate.  And while a Virgin challege is good, it won't be like the kind of competition and disruption that Apple can bring. And the Apple way is what will likely end up with Apple doing it on its own.

Imagine in 4-6 years when Apple, Telsa, and Virgin's electric cars are all going up not just against one another but the offers from traditional auto makers like BMW - beautiful sleek and fast cars that run 400+ miles on one charge powered by a green power grid. 

Of course, for a fact, only Tesla and BMW are major players in the electric car market.  Apple's entry is still just a rumor and there is just as much as chance as we'll see an Apple car as likely not.  Short answer is no one knows despite all the smoke from Cupertino. 

As for Virgin, Branson's musing about Virgin's entry into the auto market are just a few off the cuff comments.  Nothing more.  Not even a whiff of smoke.

But we can dream of the possibilites, can we?

With 2015 Macbook, Apple May Mark a Turning Point From Intel In Favor of Its Own Chips

It's like 2015 is going to be remembered as the year when Apple set in motion for its in-house developed chips to replace Intel chips in Macs.  This started with Apple using a relatively underpowered, by today's standard, Intel chip in the new Macbook as the much anticipated iPad Pro wait in the wings to be introduced with an updated iOS 9 more suitable for power users.  And this iPad Pro will sport a brand new A-series chip with comparable computing power but a longer battery life than the Macbook.

In fact, the iPad, since the very first iPad introduced by Steve Jobs, have a longer battery life than most of the Macbook variants including this 12" Macbook.

One can assume, then, that Apple will allow this new Macbook battle it out on the market with the iPad Pro.  Let the users decide what works better for them.  A traditional laptop against tablet.  Also, this won't be just an iPad with a bigger screen and a more powerful chip. Apple will probably accessorize the new iPad Pro with a cover that doubles as a keyboard, not unlike what we see with the Surface Pro from Microsoft (for discussions over Apple "copying" Microsoft in this regard, we'll leave it out for another day).

Of course, this is mostly speculation since there is hardly any concrete information about the iPad Pro, what features make it a pro version of the iPad, and if Apple will even release it (probably).  For veteran Apple watchers, it is a well known fact Apple worked on many projects that never seen the light of day.

Once we know all about the Pro, then we can begin to gain a clearer picture about Apple's CPU going forward.  There are discussions going on about how the 2015 Macbook was like the original Macbook Air when it was released.  It was underpowered and overpriced.  Perhaps this Macbook is.  Perhaps not.  But most agree that by the third iteration, it should be the Macbook that Apple wanted it to be.  And it may be the replacement for the Macbook Air.

Let's wait and see six months from now when the new iPads are released.  If the 2015 iPads are close in computing power or as powerful as the Macbook, it may well be that the iPads will eventually replace the consumer-class Macs.

Apple TV: Recent TV Moves and Deals By Apple Explains Why There Is No App Store Yet (If Ever)

There are no apps on the Apple TV other than those that Apple put there.  Video, music, podcast, and Netflix to name a few are the only ones there.  In fact, there are quite a few choices for users to select regardless of music, video, or live streaming media.  What is not there is an app store that many have been asking for or rumored about.  And to be frank, there may never be an app store for the Apple TV.

Apple has so far been adding "windows", if you will, that allows the user to consume content without any actual interaction.  No social graph.  You can play games on your iPhone or iPad via Airplay, mostly through mirroring, hardly ideal.

And let's face it, the currently Apple TV is good enough for streaming and Airplay, nothing more.  And until Apple updates the hardware on the Apple TV, we won't know what Apple may have planned. 

And once Apple's own streaming video service is available, it might be all that Apple needs - more content.

If anything, Apple will add apps relating to its "kits".  By that, I mean HealthKit and HomeKit.  There is so much potential there but Apple will likely move slow on those fronts as well, especially HomeKit.  It could take years for something tangible to develop, a "wow" factor that has so far been missing.  For the most part, Apple is happy to sit back and let others play with them and let developers and hardware makers figure out how to best use Apple's services. 

And if you think about it, what apps do you really need on the Apple TV that works better on a TV than on an iOS device.  Games quickly come to mind but Apple's support for third-party hardware like game controllers has been muted.  Again, it just feels like Apple was testing the water with the controllers until they see a breakthrough.  Apple TV plus an iOS equals a gaming console. 

There have been rumblings about a new Apple TV each and every single year but in 2014, it did feel like Apple was finally going to open up the floodgate a bit.  Apple stopped calling it a "hobby" for one thing.  And with the recent price cut, the $99 price point is available for a newer Apple TV.

Let's just see what the rest of 2015 have in store.  Or 2016.

Apple TV Channels Coming This Year

With HBO Go on board, Apple is on the verge of debuting its own TV service supposedly with around 25 channels for about $40.  This is as concrete as we are going to get given years of rumors and, frankly, disappointment.

According to Wall Street Journal (via Cult of Mac), Apple has lined up major networks like ABC, Fox, and CBS.  Considering how long it has taken and subscribers already with Sling TV as a choice at $20 a month and 14 channels, it might not be that great a deal.  And furthermore, from what we can tell, it's not "cord-cutter" friendly.

A lot can still change between now and this year's Worldwide Developers Conference, supposedly when Apple will unveil the service.  However, if history is any indication, it's unlikely Apple will pick the WWDC for this unveiling as Apple tend to want to focus on iOS and OS X during the conference.

If Apple does unveil its streaming TV service, it'll likely be in the fall when Apple updates iOS devices like the iPhone 6S and iPad.

What channels are we likely to see?  Based on Sling TV's service, ESPN and a few Disney properties are likely on board.  If CBS is a part of the deal, perhaps Comedy Central might be a part of it.  You can't have a package without CNN.  And as for Fox, perhaps the FX network.

Also, in addition to being HBO Go's exclusive launch partner, Apple may be offering an online version of Showtime, a property of CBS.

Which we are unlikely to see consumers giving the ability to subscribe to channels that they want, what Apple and Sling TV are offering could be the next best thing.  A small subset of popular channels with value-added packages depending on what the subscribers want to watch.

Is this a good thing?  Absolutely.  Slow but surely, consumers will have more choices and competition in the market as we move closer to the death of the current TV and cable models.

Unflattering Doc About Steve Jobs Coming - If Fair, Then It Needs To Be Made

Source:  Insider.

Many of our icons, good and/or bad, have flaws.  They're people just like anyone else.  No one is perfect and public figures or anyone with a big ego and personality tends to have amplified flaws.  That is what makes them great and infamous at times.  This is the same for politicans, celebrities, and innovators like Steve Jobs.  Certainly, anyone who has hear of Jobs have heard a story or two that highlighted his character flaws.

Now, a new documentary called "Steve Jobs:  Man In The Machine" (IMDB), it takes a look at Jobs' personal life and focused on specific events in his life that underscore what a selfish man and what a megalomaniac is he.  Admittedly, other films and documentaries only provided a passing glance at this side of the man and the many books about his seemed to want to rush through the early parts of his life, like how he treated his daughter Lisa and get to what the meat about his rise in Apple, his exile and "time in the forest", and his second coming at Apple.

A line in the documentary highlighted the kind of film this will be,"behind the scenes, Jobs could be ruthless, deceitful, and cruel".  Both allies and enemies of Jobs can attest to that.  Often times, I've wondered how these ruthless icons would be like if they were actual heads of states.  A smart bet is that their ruthlessness would be unchecked.  Given our more open and democratic society, it's already pretty bad.  Reality in Washington is not too far removed from Netflix's "House of Cards".  Imagine Larry Ellison in Putin's position. 

One should question the motive behind "Man In The Machine".  It's likely the director is not attempting to be fair and balance or simply trying to balance the the positive media regarding Jobs over the years when he took an nearly bankrupted Apple and turned it onto what it is today. 

Perhaps to take down someone like Steve Jobs is simply icing on the cake for someone like him.  Whatever his motives, the director will be offering a different look at Steve Jobs. 

Green: Warming Gas, Carbon Dioxide, Level in 2014 Same as 2013 Despite Booming Economy

Source:  New Scientist.This isn't really a tech or social media story that I normally like to share about Apple, Google, and others but the news that carbon dioxide emissions in 2014 was the same as the previous year is pretty significant.  And in some part, it has to do with alternative energy sources that came only despite a growing global economy.

The only times this has happened were during economic slowdowns experienced in the early 80s, the recession of 1992, and the Great Recession in 2009. While researchers at Tyndall Institute for Climate Change Research at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, UK had expected a 2.3% increase in carbon emission, changing energy use and patterns should have alerted them to the possibility that carbon increase should slow dramatically. 

As dirty as China is, renewable energy use is increasing in the Middle Kingdom while coal use is down.  Furthermore, tempered growth in China is also contributing to the carbon level in 2014 equaling that of the previous year. 

It's just one year and the trend is continuing carbon increases.  But the level in 2014 showed that it does not have to be this way.  Fortune 500 companies like Apple, Google, and Walmart have taken the lead combating global warming by switching over the solar, wind, and other renewable sources of energy. 

Furthermore, energy consumption of coal and oil is down in the United States as well.  This is despite the fact that gas prices have down come in the last year.  If we can put together a string of 4-6 years of lower carbon emission, who knows.  Perhaps that might be enough to reverse some of the warming effects.

And maybe in five years, a March day in Los Angeles like today won't be in the 90s and we'll start getting more rains and snow cover in the local mountains.