4 ms·

>Like this argument you’re proposing just boils down to “it doesn’t solve my needs and therefore I can’t imagine it solving other people’s needs” I never said

>Like this argument you’re proposing just boils down to “it doesn’t solve my needs and therefore I can’t imagine it solving other people’s needs” I never said that. I asked what needs does the M4 solve that the M3/2 couldn't? I asked that because people keep bring up the M4 in discussion, arguing against X86/Qualcomm chips, how they're slower than Apple's latest M4 chips, and for that I counteract with the fact that for a lot of cases the M4's extra performance over x86/Qualcomm is irelevant since X86/Qualcomm chips solve different and a lot more diverse problems that the highly restrictive and niche problems the iPad solves. And it's not me, because those are not my needs, I don't compile the linux kernel or doe CAD/CAE, or microbiology simulations but those to me (and to society and humanity) those are still more important than movie writers having a slightly faster iPad for drafts, since it's not like that was the reasons most movies suck nowadays.

ben_w 2y ago
> I never said that. I asked what needs does the M4 solve that the M3/2 couldn't? I asked that because people keep bring up the M4 in discussion, arguing against X86/Qualcomm chips, how they're slower than Apple's latest M4 chips, and for that I counteract with the fact that for a lot of cases the M4's extra performance over x86/Qualcomm is irelevant since X86/Qualcomm chips solve different and a lot more diverse problems that the highly restrictive and niche problems the iPad solves. If you think one brand of "chips solve different and a lot more diverse problems" than another, it sounds like you don't know what "Turing machine" means. All chips can always do what other chips can do — eventually. M4 is faster. That's it. That's the whole selling point.
- Rinzler89 2y ago
  >M4 is faster. Faster at what exactly? Where can I buy these M4 chips to upgrade my PC with to make it faster as you claim? Oh, it's only shipped as part of a very locked down tablet OS and restricted ecosystem with totally different apps than those running on the X86/generic ARM chips which can run anything you write for them? OK, fine, but then what's the point of it being faster than those other chip if they can't run the same sw? Like I said, you're comparing a Ferrari to a van. It's faster yes, but totally different use cases. And the world runs mostly on people driving vans/trucks, not on people driving Ferraris.
  - ben_w 2y ago
    Your complaint is more like saying a people carrier is an overpriced sportscar because of its inability to function as a backhoe, while ignoring evidence not only from all the people who use people people carriers, but also disregarding the usage and real world value evidence in the form of the particular company behind this people carrier manages to be wildly popular despite above average prices for every single model.
dagmx 2y ago
You're arguing multiple axes and this argument feels really nonsensical to me as a result. So first of all, your entire argument hinges on YOUR belief that the iPad is just a consumption device. So you don't believe the M4 is a significant jump over the M2, even when I give you reasons that it is. Then your argument hinges on the comparison to Qualcomm SoCs, but isn't the use of the iPad irrelevant unless you also believe it'll not make its way to other devices? Which feels unfounded. Those are two distinct arguments that IMHO have no bearing on each other unless you also make the two assumptions that I think you're erroneously making.

ben_w 2y ago

> I never said that. I asked what needs does the M4 solve that the M3/2 couldn't? I asked that because people keep bring up the M4 in discussion, arguing against X86/Qualcomm chips, how they're slower than Apple's latest M4 chips, and for that I counteract with the fact that for a lot of cases the M4's extra performance over x86/Qualcomm is irelevant since X86/Qualcomm chips solve different and a lot more diverse problems that the highly restrictive and niche problems the iPad solves. If you think one brand of "chips solve different and a lot more diverse problems" than another, it sounds like you don't know what "Turing machine" means. All chips can always do what other chips can do — eventually. M4 is faster. That's it. That's the whole selling point.

Rinzler89 2y ago
>M4 is faster. Faster at what exactly? Where can I buy these M4 chips to upgrade my PC with to make it faster as you claim? Oh, it's only shipped as part of a very locked down tablet OS and restricted ecosystem with totally different apps than those running on the X86/generic ARM chips which can run anything you write for them? OK, fine, but then what's the point of it being faster than those other chip if they can't run the same sw? Like I said, you're comparing a Ferrari to a van. It's faster yes, but totally different use cases. And the world runs mostly on people driving vans/trucks, not on people driving Ferraris.
- ben_w 2y ago
  Your complaint is more like saying a people carrier is an overpriced sportscar because of its inability to function as a backhoe, while ignoring evidence not only from all the people who use people people carriers, but also disregarding the usage and real world value evidence in the form of the particular company behind this people carrier manages to be wildly popular despite above average prices for every single model.

dagmx 2y ago

You're arguing multiple axes and this argument feels really nonsensical to me as a result. So first of all, your entire argument hinges on YOUR belief that the iPad is just a consumption device. So you don't believe the M4 is a significant jump over the M2, even when I give you reasons that it is. Then your argument hinges on the comparison to Qualcomm SoCs, but isn't the use of the iPad irrelevant unless you also believe it'll not make its way to other devices? Which feels unfounded. Those are two distinct arguments that IMHO have no bearing on each other unless you also make the two assumptions that I think you're erroneously making.