Still an option, but maybe not as seamless as I'd thought. Telling devs they need to resubmit to be compatible with the latest OS isn't beyond the pale-- and I'm not sure it would be the first time they've done something like that. If a dev can't be bothered to re-upload an intermediate product of an App they've already made, how much support is that app really getting?
"You have half a year to make a new build of your app that may not even compile without some changes, or your app flat-out won't run on our new computers"? That seems unprecedented to me. Run slowly, or with limitations (e.g., not filling the entire screen, on bigger iPhones), sure, but not at all?
It'll also lead some developers to simply ditch the Mac, which at its current status isn't a good message to send.
[automerge]1592386198[/automerge]
Not only allowing installing *any* app (that comes with source code and/or a buildable Xcode project), but a lot of other holes would need to be punched in the iPadOS sandbox to allow full use of lldb and Instruments on running apps and processes to debug and tune, as well as run automated integrations/builds/regressions, and etc. But maybe not disabling SIP.
Sure, lldb, Instruments, etc. need a level off inter-process communication and monkey-patching that is currently impossible in iOS, but never say never.
[automerge]1592386481[/automerge]
Lol - power efficiency is the central question when comparing architectures, because power efficency ultimatively limits the performance of your device. If you designing a phone - your limit is below 5W - if user is interested in the number is irrelevant - but he surely wants a phone, which he can put in his pocket. And because thats driven by the laws of physics, it does not matter if the number is pusblished or not.
I'm not disagreeing with that.
If you design a passively cooled closed case tablet, the power limit is around 7-10W when you want the device to stay somewhat cool. Going up in power at one point you will need a fan and a thicker and heavier chassis due to the needed cooling solution.
Even at the desktop space you will want to stay below around 150-200 W if you want to stay air cooled. In fact many desktop products stay at around 100W thermal power in oder to employ a relatively cheap and quite! cooling solution.
Yes, I understand the merits of keeping the TDP low.
I'm saying it's an engineering problem. At the high level, it's not the consumer's concern. If one laptop runs cool and fast and another runs hot and slow, the latter is a bad product. It doesn't matter if it's because the heatpipe was designed poorly, the device is too thin, the CPU is inefficient, etc. The sum of all parts is simply bad.
And the sum of all parts of the Surface Pro X? I'll probably take either an iPad Pro or a Surface Pro 7 over it any day, because Qualcomm chips aren't that great, and neither is Windows on ARM.
So if it helps you, forget about the numbers and just think about the product. Does not change the fact that power efficiency limits the performance you get out of a certain product.
And here ARM cores and Apple cores in particular beat any AMD/Intel cores at the same technology. And this will go through the whole power spectrum from phone to desktop.
Sure.
www.wsj.com
