Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Olympic athletes are not only paid for winning medals, they are also exempt from the income taxes which ordinary Americans pay.

That's great for them, and well deserved, but in the article it states:

(1) That it's a discretionary payment from the US Olympic Committee. Not all countries will do this (I expect) and the amounts will no doubt vary.

(2) "Athletes do not get paid just for competing"

(3) Presumably if you do not win a medal you do not get paid by anyone.


My point (as shown in the earlier link I posted on how athletes are funded) is that a lot of olympic athletes, probably the majority, have regular jobs or occupations, albeit that allow them enough free time to train. Of course many will seek additional funding through sponsorships, endorsements or other donations, and a good number will receive some funding from their governments or the relevant sporting association in their country.

We could argue whether receiving a grant of some sort makes you a professional or not, but it looks like the majority are not receiving a salary from a professional team in the way that soccer, baseball, football players with professional contracts have.

I just heard an interview with a typical athlete who is the only Jamaican competing in the Winter Olympics. He said he was funded from his own personal savings, loans from friends and family, and some from the bank. He made no mention of getting any other funding for training & travel costs. Of course he may well get some sponsorship or endorsement deals if he performs well, which could well move him into the "professional" category.

And yes, to your earlier point, it would not greatly surprise me if some Olympic athletes were living in relative poverty or working in McDonalds. Did you ever see the film about the British ski-jumper "Eddie the Eagle"? He lived in a camper van and did odd jobs just so he could afford to live near European training slopes.
 
Ok, so all this off-topic about athletes pro or non pro means in translation to the pro / max chips that, pro are those that are funded in regular ways. And the max chips don’t give a ##it about anything regular, right?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Fomalhaut
Ok, so all this off-topic about athletes pro or non pro means in translation to the pro / max chips that, pro are those that are funded in regular ways.

While the Amateur chip pretends not to be funded, performs in expensive government-subsidized facilities, and receives media attention once very four years.
 


In his Power On newsletter today, Bloomberg's Mark Gurman reiterated that Apple is planning to hold a virtual event on Tuesday, March 8 to introduce new iPhone SE and iPad Air models, which are both expected to feature an A15 chip and 5G support.


Gurman said Apple also plans to launch at least one new Mac this spring, but it's unclear if that Mac would be introduced at Apple's event. This new Mac could be a high-end Mac mini powered by the M1 Pro and M1 Max chips, as an Apple silicon replacement for the 27-inch iMac is not expected to launch until as late as August or September.

Apple has at least four new Macs powered by M2 chips in its pipeline, including refreshed models of the MacBook Air, entry-level 13-inch MacBook Pro, 24-inch iMac, and entry-level Mac mini, according to Gurman. It's likely these Macs will launch later in the year after Apple finishes releasing its final Macs with M1 Pro and M1 Max chips.

Gurman believes Apple will remove the Touch Bar from the new entry-level MacBook Pro, and he expects the notebook will lack a ProMotion display.

Article Link: Gurman: Apple Event on March 8, At Least Four M2 Macs to Launch Later This Year
Is there a new iPad PRO with M2 or M1 Pro/Max chips in the pipeline this year?
 
Entry level MBP should not exist. Pro should mean Pro. The only entry level Mac portables should be MBA and MBA should get SD Card and MagSafe. Mac portables vs Pro Mac portables should be differentiated by double the number of USB-C ports, support for additional external monitors, computer thickness, much greater power + fans (to justify fans), high refresh displays and larger speakers, purely because you can fit a larger speaker in a bigger chassis. MBA should take an obvious performance hit over all Pro machines, so MBA are fast and MBP are exceedingly fast. Port variety should not take a hit, but USB-C port count should. This makes MBA a great machine with extra portability and MBP a truly amazing machine at higher prices and with some additional expandability and heft—for certain kinds of professionals who need all the power and expandability a Pro portable Mac deserves.
As I'm sure you know, thus far the AS architecture isn't working that way. In going from the entry level to pro models, they're not upping the clock speed, they're mostly just scaling up the number of CPU/GPU cores. Thus single-core speeds on the low-end and high-end models are the same. Doing otherwise may require separate architectures, and it may not be cost-effective for Apple to pursue this. As most programs aren't multi-core, it's those speeds that most typically determine how fast the machine is.
 
As I'm sure you know, thus far the AS architecture isn't working that way. In going from the entry level to pro models, they're not upping the clock speed, they're mostly just scaling up the number of CPU/GPU cores. Thus single-core speeds on the low-end and high-end models are the same. Doing otherwise may require separate architectures, and it may not be cost-effective for Apple to pursue this. As most programs aren't multi-core, it's those speeds that most typically determine how fast the machine is.
On the speed front this is through, but there are many ways to make a pro machine more pro than non-pro machine without ruining variety of ports which should be part of every Mac. Such as port count and 2X USB-C ports, etc.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.