Jump to content

Trixanity

Member
  • Posts

    3,333
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Trixanity

  1. It seems to me to be the good ol' "make something new to keep things going like they've always been". It's kinda like the Google approach of making new products because that's where the money and prestige is. I'd really like to know how governments come up with the idea of buying stuff via contracts that are way too expensive and that has way too long timeframes with no guarantees and no recourse when you realize that the contractor lied to you, will ask for more money, will ask for more time and can't deliver on any quality or quantity metric. Rinse and repeat. Of course you soon realize that these companies buy these contracts for pennies. That you're looking at branches of government that has money to spend so that it has to be spent on something and preferably something visible with some prestige for those attached to these projects. And then it gets worse when you realize that it spills over across NATO members who have been pressured to buy into this crap. It's like a bad state sponsored MLM-looking kinda deal. It's tiresome.
  2. Considering the number times I've criticized this shitty product and gotten flak for it, you'd think there would be no more problems yet they keep coming
  3. I mean any whining developers could make a package if they refuse to go 64 bit. Could even be helpful to other whining developers.
  4. Is there anything preventing Canonical (or anyone else) from making some optional package available that would contain the necessary common shared libraries so that software still works? Given the nature of Linux I was under the impression that it would be trivial to make and trivial to use?
  5. It is but AMD has put a limit on RPM by default so it'll max out at 1800. AMD says it translates to 43 dB which is significantly less than previous solutions.
  6. I'd be very disappointed if Vega would be coming along for 7nm. Keep in mind it's still a rumor and I haven't seen any evidence for it.
  7. It's pretty much guaranteed to not be loud but it'll probably run a bit hot.
  8. Those are already out. So it wouldn't make sense to launch them again in 4 months.
  9. There are rumors that APUs launch in 4-5 months. Said rumors also calls it a 7nm refresh though with implications that it might still be Vega for whatever reason. Grain of salt and all that.
  10. Seems unnecessary. They would have to remove their competitive advantage to do that. Yes, the controllers are in the IOD. However as far as I'm aware IF runs over PCIe. At least externally. So AMD would, as I said, have to kneecap it. Granted they could actually do it physically but it would be the same difference. Of course it all depends on need but the point stands that both companies will push forward with the technology.
  11. Then either AMD would need to artificially kneecap it or board vendors would need to physically do it.
  12. AMD will almost be forced to unless they change their paradigm because epyc customers will want as much as bandwidth they can get their hands on. They also need to keep pushing forward unless they're willing to risk giving Intel a window of opportunity to blindside them and push them out again. Intel will at least do it for Xeon in some capacity. You could argue with their current strategy that they'll keep it out of consumer products.
  13. Doubtful. Intel will probably be jumping straight to gen 5 as soon as they can. It's also likely AMD will target it with their next socket/platform change.
  14. MacOS drops 32 bit completely this year. The latest OS release which is in beta now is 64 bit only and just to be clear that means 32 bit applications won't run. Public release should be around September. It has also issued warnings for at least a year every time you launch a 32 bit application. I think Apple has recommended developers make 64 bit applications for the last 10 years. In other words 64 bit has been the primary target in that timeframe. I don't think developers in the Mac ecosystem could be any more prepared.
  15. It's about convenience. Any device with optional LTE could be answered with "why not use a hotspot?". Certainly laptops and I'd say tablets too. Although I'd agree that the convenience has diminishing returns depending on use case and I'd say it becomes a bit steep when it comes to a game console. Just to note: I don't think LTE would be a huge benefit for a Nintendo console but I've heard people complaining (long ago) about Microsoft's Surface products not having LTE options (disqualifying it from their business use) and them considering hot spots inconvenient so I guess I'm not the target for such a feature. Tl;dr seems mostly pointless to me but there seems to be a market for it.
  16. There is no example to draw from because this is new territory. The closest is PS Vita which was 3G for $50 but it was a half assed money grab that they quickly discontinued. However given pricing structures and product category (with no shenanigans) $50 is the most likely candidate. I think you should just go with the assumption that you are incorrect. Always.
  17. A mark-up and the size of it depends on your brand and business model. Nintendo has a lot of additional revenue streams tied to the main product. They don't have to do a massive mark-up. They could fold the cost into the product price if they intend to drive sales for LTE connectivity. They could raise margins by making it a optional top SKU. It also depends on the target price. I can't imagine a $300 product getting a 33-50% price hike for LTE connectivity alone. It's been a while since I've been in the Nintendo ecosystem but I don't recall them doing price gouging to that level. So at best I see them tying LTE to more upgrades for a higher total price. Like more storage for example. Extra controllers perhaps. Something along those lines to manipulate the value of the higher tier SKU with a supposed LTE addition. That would allow them do a high percentage price increase without pissing off their customers and increase the perceived value without spending much. It could very well end up driving sales to the more expensive SKU (like Apple does with their storage and RAM configurations across product lines; in other words making the entry model less desirable). The problem with making comparisons is that there aren't any truly applicable. Phones and tablets are different to consoles. So are laptops. The markets are totally different, the customers are different, the pricing and business models are different. I could give you the example of a Samsung wearable costing $50 more with LTE but is that the correct comparison? Don't think so.
  18. Are you for real? Of course I'd look up some rough numbers. Otherwise I might end up saying LTE modems cost $400. So if you wanna go there then sure. I certainly showed you real good. And another look tells me that we're looking at probably in the $30-40 range total with everything accounted for. That's still a long way from $100, $150 or $400. Keep in mind that in this case we're talking Qualcomm squeezing Apple and providing them with a flagship modem to boot. A Nintendo could be paying a fair bit less for lower end solution and if the US court system gets their shit together we could be looking at a much cheaper solution.
  19. What I was thinking is why we still post and discuss these useless benchmarks?
  20. I'm not saying the prices you listed are wrong. I'm saying your conclusion is. Concluding that because the iPhone costs $600 and has an LTE modem whereas the iPod Touch costs $200 and does not have an LTE modem then it means that it costs $400 (or any other 3 digit number) to put an LTE modem into a device. It doesn't cost $150 or $100 either. I've seen estimates that it costs Apple upwards of $4 billion a year for modems. That's like $20 a piece. However the latest data from the lawsuits says $7.50 per device that Apple sends Qualcomm's way for modems. Apple wanted to pay $1.50 by the way. The $100-150 you're talking about is a convenience fee if accurate. The same way Apple charges you an extra $1000 for a 2 TB SSD when in reality it's a $350 upgrade (that's even the retail price meaning it actually costs less). It's just a way to drive profits up.
  21. Well, Verizon is lucky they're not dealing with Qualcomm. Otherwise it'd have been $10 billion.
  22. When did the thread turn into this?
×