The Framework of tech
COMPREHENSIVE GUIDES, REVIEWS, NEWS, & SPECULATION
Apple’s new computer chip, the M1 system-in-package processor, has taken the computer world by storm. The M1 can outperform many similar low power chips by Intel and even AMD while running in an emulation layer. This type of performance is unprecedented—but Apple’s CPU changes aren’t. They’ve gone from Motorola to the PowerPC coalition, from PowerPC to Intel, and they are now in the transition from Intel to “Apple Silicon.” What can we learn from these earlier transitions that apply to this one? Apple’s switch from PowerPC to Intel is the most direct comparison. The company’s Power line of computers were performing well, but Intel’s chips were performing better. There is a key similarity here—the A13 Bionic in the iPad Pro regularly outperformed the base Intel i3 chip in the Macbook Air. The key difference in the Intel transition was that Apple rebranded and redesigned their portable computers as “MacBooks,” as opposed to iBooks and PowerBooks. This hasn’t been the case so far. In fact, the external housings for the new Macbook Air, Macbook Pro, and Mac Mini are completely unchanged. As a result we can expect the design of these computers to be updated very soon, possibly with new 14” and 16” laptops that take advantage of the low-power Apple Silicon. However, the most important thing to learn from these transitions is one key point: the second generation products always have more support than the first. There is no better example of this than the transition to Intel, and thus, to MacBooks. The first ever Macbook, a glossy snow-white polycarbonate laptop, was released in early 2006 with an all-new Intel Core Duo processor. It was a massive improvement over the previous generation of PowerPC laptops. What followed was only one additional software update, and the original MacBook became obsolete in just a few years. Just months later, Apple released the upgraded late 2006 models of the MacBook with Intel’s new Core 2 Duo processor, a dual core chip which greatly improved the machine. Two models were released: a glossy white polycarbonate MacBook and the only ever matte black MacBook, affectionately dubbed the “BlackBook.” The new Core 2 Duo MacBooks received more software updates than the original MacBook despite being released just months later. The 2009 unibody MacBook can run MacOS 10.16 Catalina, a software update that was released ten years after the MacBook was released. There’s a pattern here. Although the original MacBook (Intel) was groundbreaking at the time, it aged horribly. The BlackBook and new MacBooks aged better, but still became obsolete quicker than expected. The 2009 Macbook, released three years after the Intel transition began, can be patched to run the latest MacOS 11 Big Sur. To learn from this history, we have to be cautious when purchasing new MacBooks. If you have to buy a new computer, you won’t be disappointed with a new M1 Mac. But if you don’t—and you’re just impressed by the M1’s performance—don’t buy it. The next Apple Silicon line of MacBooks will be significantly better than the M1, and the only proof that I need is that I am typing this entire article in Microsoft Word 2011 on the 2007 BlackBook.
Apple follows its history, and its patterns are known. The second generation MacBooks, iPads, iPhones, Apple Watches, and other Apple products have been significant improvements over the first. If you’re in awe of the M1, be in awe from afar—because something much greater is coming in the near future.
0 Comments
Music. It's something many of us enjoy and arguably has been a constant throughout human history. What has changed is the way music is stored and played. Previous music formats, such as Vinyl and Compact Discs (CDs), have come, gone, and returned again. Though digital media was always the goal—now hundreds of thousands of songs can be stored in MicroSD chips as small as your fingertip—the process of playing music was always part of the experience. That's why the so-called "obsolete" media formats like Vinyl, CD, and cassette are making a resurgence. So what about streaming in the Uber-digital age? Streaming music is peak portability and accessibility without the "process" of playing and listening to music. Accessing services like Apple Music, Spotify, and TIDAL offer tens of thousands of songs within a few taps—as long as you have an internet connection. These services vary in subscription prices and tiers, though Apple Music, Spotify, and TIDAL both have a $9.99/mo tier. Despite the clear benefits of streaming services, there are a few problems with streaming services that can be detrimental to music-lovers, and they might not even realize them. Problem 1: Streaming music relegates listening to a "background" taskMost people streaming music on smartphones, including myself for many years, lose track of music due to the distractions of a smartphone. Music listening in the days of iPods, CDs, cassettes, and records was one experience, not a barrage of smartphone tasks and notifications. When streaming music on your phone, do you remain on your app, listen closely to the sounds, observe the album art, and read the lyrics? It is far more likely that your music experience is closer to the picture above. You're scrolling on social media, texting, maybe even reading this blog—and your music is banished to the control center. Do you really enjoy your music consumption while streaming on your phone, or is it just something that 'exists' while doing other things? If you are someone that appreciates music and would like to change your habits, the best way is to find another media source. Smartphones set listeners up for failure because they have the entire world at their fingertips. Try investing in other formats, like CDs, Vinyl, or a dedicated music player—like an iPod or MP3 player. You might even have some of these formats lying around your house, and if not, the entry prices are far lower than that of a streaming service that costs close to $150 per year. Problem 2: PriceMany people have simply accepted the monthly fees of subscription streaming services due to the plethora of options they offer. But are they really a good deal? Both Apple and Spotify's unlimited streaming plans start at $9.99/mo., or about $120 per year before regional taxes are added. That's a steep price to pay for music that can generally be heard on sites like YouTube free of charge. What's more is that digital music is coming down in price to own every day. Award-winning albums that used to cost north of $15 to own can now be had for as low as $5. Individual songs used to be standardized at $1.29 per song, but now many can be owned for just 69 cents per song. That's enticing, as you can own about 8-12 songs per month, or select entire albums per month, for the same price as your streaming service. A song that was released a month ago today, 34+35 Remix, is priced at just 69 cents despite currently holding the #4 spot on the Billboard Hot 100 Taylor Swift's evermore (deluxe version) is priced at just $7.99 while including 17 tracks and debuting just over a month ago. Considering that your access to music ends as soon as you end your subscription, you have two choices: Commit to spending $120 per year for the rest of your life or own your music. Own your music.Music should be something we enjoy, cherish, and experience fully. It shouldn't be something experienced in the background.
Streaming music is like leasing a car to drive through scenic routes. You have to keep leasing the car in order to keep driving through the scenic routes, and soon enough, you've made so many payments that you could have owned the car outright. Moreover, you're not "experiencing" driving the car, you're experiencing the scenery. Owning the music you enjoy on Vinyl, CDs, or MP3s can form a deeper connection with your music, and might even save you money. |
Brady SnyderJournalism student at St. John's University. Expert of all things Apple, both hardware and software. Categories |