Well, I think nobody can argue that Apple's tech is still better, but this is the first time someone was able to offer some competition that doesn't look like a joke in comparison to Apple's M series.
True, although for a battery system with a given economic lifespan, the "cost of inefficiency" is inversely proportional to the average storage time. So, it's 7x less important for weekly vs. daily storage.
You are talking a different (nickel-cobalt-manganese, or NCM) battery chemistry. This is also a type of a Li-ion battery but has a number of advantages and disadvantages compared to LFP battery chemistry (which is just another type of Li-ion batteries).
As you mentioned, NCM has much higher power density, and allows charge/discharge at higher rates than LFP. But LFP technology is much better in terms of safety, stability, low degradation over time and much longer overall lifetime with high number of charge-discharge cycles.
A proper dictator will immediately remove all potential power from army generals, police chiefs, political party leaders and so on. He will not even remotely allow any potential challengers that are capable of consolidating enough resources to even think of causing any trouble.
On the other hand, he will allow his establishment to feed off the system, so they become dependent on him and remain interested in maintaining status quo and stay within the line. Of course, this is reinforced with brutal crackdowns on any form of dissent. He makes everyone worthless and replaceable, and makes it seem that it is very easy to lose everything if you show any disloyalty or try to push for your interests in a wrong way.
In the country where I'm from, military chief commanders were just some planted nobodies that were rotated every year or so. All political establishment was fully loyal and were too weak to even have fantasies on grabbing power.
As an iPhone user, if I wanted a phone with Samsung, Amazon, Epic and Huawei stores, 3 different preinstalled browsers and my workflows depended on sideloading some obscure app for a website in Turkey, I'd go with Android. Such an option exists for people who are into that.
But I chose iPhone (and I think many other customers do) specifically for it being a walled garden. Now some other corporations like Epic, who want to have a cake and eat it too, are going to ruin one of the platform's key selling points.
> my workflows depended on sideloading some obscure app
And if your workflow did require an obscure app, who is Apple to decided that you cannot install it on your own phone?
> But I chose iPhone (and I think many other customers do) specifically for it being a walled garden.
People like this walled garden since apple promises that it's safe and they deal with all of the problems for you. But time and time again we see that their App Store features outright scams and mountains of knockoff garbage apps.
People buy into the marketing of the walled garden, not the reality of it.
>People like this walled garden since apple promises that it's safe and they deal with all of the problems for you.
I get the "safety" argument, but it's also about the user experience. What if now Microsoft makes me install Microsoft store to use M365 apps, Amazon makes me install whatever store to use their products, etc? What do I win here as a consumer?
I buy iPhone specifically for what it is. I get that some people don't like walled garden approach, so they have Android at their service. Apple is not a monopoly.
What is the point of buying a phone knowing what you are getting, and then complaining about something you knew full well it doesn't have?
> What is the point of buying a phone knowing what you are getting, and then complaining about something you knew full well it doesn't have?
Because the thing the company is offering is a behaviour that overall is not one we as a society want (Apple being allowed to dictate what businesses will and will not succeed by either locking them out of 1/2 of the major mobile OS, or by taking a 30% tax from their revenue and then competing against them).
>Apple being allowed to dictate what businesses will and will not succeed by either locking them out of 1/2 of the major mobile OS, or by taking a 30% tax from their revenue and then competing against them
All app stores (and most real-world markets and stores) do that. This is a business model. And as a store owner who invested billions of dollars to build it, and the entire platform and infrastructure around it, you are in your full right to decide the rules on what is allowed there and what is not, and how much to charge. If your rules are unfair or disadvantageous to the competition, sellers and customers simply will not come. But as we can see, App Store is the most successful app marketplace on the planet, both for developers and consumers.
Just as Google is the most successful search engine on the planet for advertisers, website owners and consumers, regardless of the fact that Google can fully dictate what appears in its search results or what advertisers can put in their ads, and how much Google charges for it.
So I don't quite understand what exactly the argument here.
This this different argument than allowing sideloading apps (that one is quite fair, I'll admit).
It is related to side loading. Apple for a long time disallowed side loading (even now it barely counts). So if you wanted to sell anything to iPhone users you had to go through Apple's store and potentially compete with them at a 30% tax disadvantage.
Even with the current side loading changes, which are EU only, they still take a major cut and still dictate who can and cannot run a store.
So I agree with you that the App Store, like other stores have the right to dictate what they do and do not sell. They do not, however, have the right to say that they're the only store allowed, or that any new store must pay them money.
Also, I'd be hesitant of using Google's behaviour, certainly its current behaviour or current market position, as justification for what is okay for others to do.
How can you know that it’s the most successful store in the absence of any competition at all? You don’t have a choice. The App Store app comes preinstalled on iPhones and iPads and you cannot choose any other store, so no wonder it’s successful. The only conclusion that you can draw from that is the iPhone and iPad owners like to buy apps.
If your stat and premise is correct, 100+ million people need to be prompting ChatGPT to render copies of NYT articles specifically, for 0.01% of them to have a chance to get a meaningful result.
For now. As others have said, there is no technological “moat” in this business that could prevent others from catching up.
Perhaps the best way for Open AI is to become THE established AI services company. AWS is still the leader in cloud computing space, and only has Azure competing, despite the fact that other big companies are also technologically capable of building similar products.
> AWS is still the leader in cloud computing space, and only has Azure competing, despite the fact that other big companies are also technologically capable of building similar products.
What happened to GCP? I personally switched away because of the bad experiences.. but is that happening in scale as well. I see it barely mentioned these days.
It’s not necessarily a bad thing. Most people don’t know that TSMC exists, or what Microsoft does beyond Windows and Xbox (which are a small fraction of its business).
