| From: Don Green | 10/12/2024 9:23:05 AM | | | | | | Power-Hungry PC? Here's How Much Electricity Your Computer ConsumesHow much does it cost to run your PC? It's not a one-size-fits-all answer, but here's how to measure how much electricity your home computer eats up.Whether you're worried about your carbon footprint or are just looking to take control of your electric bill, we all know we should put our computers to sleep when we're not using them. Still, it's easy to get lazy and leave them on all day long. No big deal, right? Not necessarily.
How much money are you actually wasting in electricity by doing that? It all comes down to where you live, your PC's internal components, and how you use the machine. After a few calculations, you should be able to figure it out.
Calculation FactorsThe cost of running your computer will vary widely from person to person, since there are a few contributing factors to keep in mind:
Location: In the US, the average cost of electricity is about 17 cents per kilowatt hour (KWh), a measurement of electricity usage over time. But electricity is more costly in certain areas than others. For example, Seattle averages 13 cents/KWh, while New York City sees about 27 cents/KWh, and San Diego costs 41 cents/KWh. So it helps to know what electricity costs in your city.
Time of Day: Electric companies bill their customers based on demand, so when there is an increased need, rates go up. This is where on-peak and off-peak hours come into play. For instance, electricity may be more expensive in the late afternoon (when people come home from work and school) than it is in the middle of the night. Exact hours and rates can differ based on location and company, so make sure to get specific information directly from your provider.
Time of Year: In the same way companies bill based on time of day, they also bill based on time of year. Prices can often rise in the summer and winter months due to our reliance on air conditioning and heating. You may then notice that prices can drop in the spring and fall.
PC Components: Obviously, a powerful gaming PC with top-of-the-line components will use more electricity under load than a Chromebook with a low-power CPU. If you have an expensive gaming rig with a discrete graphics card from Nvidia or AMD, you'll need more electricity to power it, and will pay more in turn.
Usage: Just because your PC is a beast with a 750-watt power supply doesn't mean it's going to use 750 watts all the time. Most PCs come with power-saving features that lower energy usage when the computer is idle, or doing basic tasks like browsing the web. So someone mining Bitcoin or folding@home is going to use more power than someone typing up Word documents on the exact same PC for the same number of hours each day.
Measure Your Electricity Usage (Credit: P3 International)
Since usage can vary so much from PC to PC (and person to person), the best way to find out your electricity cost is to measure it yourself. You can buy a simple Kill-A-Watt meter, and use it to measure just about anything in your house.
To measure your PC's usage, turn everything off, plug your PC into the Kill-A-Watt, then plug that into the wall. You may want to plug your entire surge protector into the Kill-A-Watt to measure the PC's energy usage, when including the monitor, speakers, and other peripherals.
Press the purple KWh button on the Kill-A-Watt meter, then turn the PC back on and use it as you normally would. Check the Kill-A-Watt once a day or so to make sure it hasn't lost power and reset to zero. Before recording any results, I recommend waiting a week so it has a good period of usage with which to work.
Recommended by Our Editors
Get the Desktop Experience: How to Run Your Laptop With the Lid Closed
How to Increase Laptop Battery Life
Before You Play: 5 Ways to Optimize Windows for PC Gaming
Calculate Your Electricity Cost
From here, it's just a bit of simple math: Multiply the number you get from the Kill-A-Watt by the cost of electricity in your area (if your city uses tiered pricing based on time of day, just use the average rate for your city to get a ballpark figure). The result is how much your computer costs to run for one week.
For my tests, I left my computer on for about 12 hours each weekday—about eight of which it was in active use, since I work from home, and the other four it was left idle. Weekends saw only a few hours of use, with me letting the computer sleep most of the day.
A typical weekday's workload for me includes lots of web browsing and document writing, along with occasional gaming and other heavy workloads. At the end of the week, my Kill-A-Watt meter read 11.02 KWh of usage. Since the average cost of electricity is around 41 cents/KWh here in San Diego, my weekly cost is roughly: 11.02 KWh x $0.41/KWh = $4.51 per week, and so $4.51 x 52 weeks/year gives us a yearly estimate of $234.94 per year.
What to Make of the Results (Credit: Talaj / Getty Images)
Given that I let my computer idle for a few hours a day during this test, It's easy to see how putting my computer to sleep when I'm not using it could probably save me $30-$50 per year. That's nothing to sneeze at, but it's not exactly rent money, either. Still, your computer is just a small part of your total home power usage, so there are reasons—both environmental and financial—to conserve electricity.
Furthermore, most people will probably have a much lower yearly cost than me—possibly in the tens of dollars—if they only use their computers for a few hours a day or live in a cheaper city. The bottom line here is that you don't need to stress yourself out because you accidentally left the computer on last night. It probably won't make a huge dent in your bill. |
| | All Things Technology - Media and Know HOW | Pastime Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read |
|
| From: Don Green | 10/13/2024 5:26:16 PM | | | | | | New Gmail Security Alert For 2.5 Billion Users As AI Hack Confirmed
A new and dangerous AI threat for all Gmail users is seen in the wild
SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty ImagesUpdate, Oct. 13, 2024: This story, originally published Oct. 11, includes details of a new Google anti-scam alliance initiative, a new warning about legitimate-looking support scams and details of Google’s Advanced Protection Program to protect high-risk accounts.
Google has implemented increasingly sophisticated protections against those who would compromise your Gmail account—but hackers using AI-driven attacks are also evolving. According to Google’s own figures, there are currently more than 2.5 billion users of the Gmail service. No wonder, then, that it is such a target for hackers and scammers. Here’s what you need to know.
The Latest AI-Driven Gmail Attack Is Scary GoodSam Mitrovic, a Microsoft solutions consultant, has issued a warning after almost falling victim to what is described as a “super realistic AI scam call” capable of tricking even the most experienced of users.
It all started a week before Mitrovic realized the sophistication of the attack that was targeting him. “I received a notification to approve a Gmail account recovery attempt,” Mitrovic recounts in a blog post warning other Gmail users of the threat in question. The need to confirm an account recovery, or a password reset, is a notorious phishing attack methodology intended to drive the user to a fake login portal where they need to enter their credentials to report the request as not initiated by them.
ForbesGmail Hackers Have Control Of 2FA, Email And Number? Here’s What To DoBy Davey WinderUnsurprisingly, then, Mitrovic wasn’t falling for this and ignored the notification that appeared to originate from the U.S. and a missed phone call, pertaining to be from Google in Sydney, Australia, some 40 minutes later. So far, so relatively straightforward and easy to avoid. Then, almost exactly a week later, the fun started in earnest—another notification request for account recovery approval followed by a telephone call 40 minutes later. This time, Mitrovic didn’t miss the call and instead picked up: an American voice, claiming to be from Google support, confirmed that there was suspicious activity on the Gmail account.
“He asks if I’m traveling,” Mitrovic said, “when I said no, he asks if I logged in from Germany, to which I reply no.” All of this to engender trust in the caller and fear in the recipient. This is when things turned dark fast and really rather clever in the overall scheme of phishing things. The so-called Google support person informed Mitrovic that an attacker had accessed his Gmail account for the past 7 days, and had already downloaded account data. This rang alarm bells as Mitrovic recalled the recovery notification and missed call from a week earlier.
Googling the phone number he was being called from while speaking, Mitrovic discovered that it did, indeed, lead to Google business pages. This alone is a clever tactic likely to fool plenty of unsuspecting users caught up in the panic of the moment, as it wasn’t a Google support number but rather about getting calls from Google Assistant. “At the start of the call, you'll hear the reason for the call and that the call is from Google. You can expect the call to come from an automated system or, in some cases, a manual operator,” the 100% genuine page helpfully informs the reader.
ForbesGoogle Confirms New Gmail Security Boost For 2.5 Billion UsersBy Davey Winder |
| | All Things Technology - Media and Know HOW | Pastime Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read |
|
| From: Don Green | 10/13/2024 7:58:23 PM | | | | | | Microsoft 365 vs. Office 2024: What's the Difference?
dg>>>> Good to know
At first glance, Microsoft 365 and Office 2024 appear very similar to each other, as they both give you access to Microsoft's well-known and well-used apps. However, once you delve deeper, it doesn't take long to notice that they're actually very different.
Office 2024—the successor to Office 2021—is Microsoft's one-time-purchase alternative to Microsoft 365. In this article, we'll break the two packages down, helping you choose the one that's right for you. Since Office 2024 includes both Office Home 2024 and Office Home & Business 2024, we'll compare these to Microsoft 365's Personal and Business subscriptions.
All prices and details in this article are correct as of October 2024.
What is the Difference in Cost and Payments?In short, Microsoft 365 is a subscription-based service, while Office 2024 requires a one-off purchase. Here are some more specific details.
Personal- Microsoft 365 Personal is a subscription-based package, and costs $6.99 a month or $69.99 a year. There is no upfront cost other than your first subscription payment.
- Office Home 2024 requires a one-off upfront payment of $149.99, and once you've paid, there are no further costs.
Business- Microsoft 365's Business packages range in cost from $6 per user per month to $22 per user per month (paid annually), depending on whether you need the Basic, Standard, or Premium version. Once your free one-month trial has elapsed, you'll be billed for the whole year.
- Office Home & Business 2024 costs $249.99 upfront, with no further charges thereafter.
What Apps Are Included?Whether you go for Microsoft 365 or Office 2024 primarily depends on which apps you want to use.
Personal- Microsoft 365 Personal comes with desktop apps for Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Defender, OneDrive, Outlook, Clipchamp, and OneNote. You can also benefit from Microsoft Editor, an AI-powered service that helps you with grammar, spelling, style, and other writing essentials, if your language is supported.
- Office Home 2024 offers Word, Excel, PowerPoint, and OneNote desktop apps. When you install and download Office Home 2024, you get the latest versions of these apps, but they will not be updated with new features. Office 2024 does not include Microsoft Editor, and there's no Copilot support.
Business- Which apps you receive with a Microsoft 365 Business subscription depends on which level you purchase.
- Microsoft 365 Business Basic includes Teams, OneDrive, SharePoint, and Exchange as cloud-only services, and Word, Excel, PPT, and Outlook as web and mobile apps.
- Microsoft 365 Business Standard comes with all services offered through the Basic package as desktop, web, mobile, and cloud services, plus Clipchamp and Loop.
- The Microsoft 365 Business Premium package offers all the services you get with the Standard package, plus Extra ID, Intune, Defender, and Purview. All business packages include Microsoft Editor.
- With Office Home & Business 2024, you get the latest versions of Word, Excel, PowerPoint, OneNote, and Outlook as desktop apps without Microsoft Editor or Copilot.
The availability of the Microsoft 365 mobile apps varies by country and region.
Office 2024 Doesn't Come with Cloud StorageIf you use Microsoft's cloud storage a lot, Office 2024 is a tough sell.
- The Microsoft 365 Personal package comes with 1TB of cloud storage for one subscriber, while the Microsoft 365 Business accounts come with 1TB per employee. You can also purchase 200GB, 400GB, 600GB, 800GB, or 1TB of additional storage if required, with the cost added to your existing subscription.
- Neither Office Home 2024 nor Office Home & Business 2024 offer cloud storage, and files stored locally only.
Which Has Better Updates and Support?Both sets of software receive security updates, but that is the extent of the similarity.
- Apps used through the Microsoft 365 Personal or Business subscription are continually updated with the latest features and security updates.
- Office 2024 is "locked-in-time," meaning you receive security and bug fixes only. Customers who choose the one-off-payment package do not receive the latest app updates.
Can You Use Them on Multiple Devices?Both Microsoft 365 Personal and Business are compatible with Windows, Mac, iOS, and Android, and, given its cloud-supported accessibility, you can easily jump between devices for on-the-go use.
On the other hand, Office 2024 can only be installed on one PC or Mac, regardless of whether you're a Home or a Home & Business customer.
Summary
Microsoft 365
Office 2024
|
Payment
| Monthly or annually for 365 Personal, and annually for Business
| One-off, upfront
| Cost
| $6.99 a month or $69.99 a year for 365 Personal, or $6 per user per month to $22 per user per month for 365 Business
| $149.99 for Office Home 2024, or $249.99 for Office Home & Business 2024
| Apps
| Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Defender, OneDrive, Outlook, Clipchamp, and OneNote for 365 Personal, with Teams, SharePoint, Exchange, Extra ID, Intune, Defender, and Purview available for 365 Business, depending on subscription level
| Word, Excel, PowerPoint, and OneNote for Office Home 2024, with Outlook added for Business accounts
| Cloud storage
| 1TB with a 365 Personal account, or 1TB per employee with 365 Business accounts
| Not available
| Updates
| Continuous app and security updates
| Security updates and bug fixes only
| Use
| Sign in on Windows, Mac, iOS, and Android simultaneously
| One PC or Mac only
|
Show more
Office 2021 vs. Office 2024If you already purchased Office 2021, you might be considering whether it's worth upgrading to Office 2024.
The 2024 version includes most of the features introduced to Microsoft 365 subscribers in recent years, which the 2021 version doesn't. For example, the newer apps have a more modern interface, including a new color scheme and improved accessibility tools. In terms of the individual programs, 2024's Excel has many additional functions and improved performance, Outlook (for business users only) has improved search capabilities, OneNote has new drawing and ink tools, and Word includes improved document recovery processes.
If you're looking to upgrade, while going from Office to 2021 to Office 2024 might seem the obvious jump, it's certainly worth considering the benefits of subscribing to Microsoft 365 instead.
Both Microsoft 365 and Office 2024 give you access to Microsoft's comprehensive productivity tools. Despite this, the packages differ significantly. Microsoft 365 is better if you prefer a subscription-based payment structure, want to access the apps on the go through the cloud, and need more than Microsoft's core apps. On the other hand, Office 2024 is ideal if you want to make a one-off purchase, don't require multi-device access, and need only the traditional programs. |
| | All Things Technology - Media and Know HOW | Pastime Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read |
|
| From: Don Green | 10/27/2024 9:00:29 PM | | | | | | The death of Moore’s Law is finally starting to stink
Story by Jacob Roach
Oct 27, 2024
For more than two decades we’ve heard about the death of Moore’s Law. It was a principle of the late Intel co-founder Gordon Moore, positing that the number of transistors in a chip would double about every two years. In 2006, Moore himself said it would end in the 2020s. MIT Professor Charles Leiserson said it was over in 2016. Nvidia’s CEO declared it dead in 2022. Intel’s CEO claimed the opposite a few days later.
There’s no doubt that the concept of Moore’s Law — or rather observation, lest we treat this like some law of physics — has lead to incredible innovation among desktop processors. But the death of Moore’s Law isn’t a moment in time. It’s a slow, ugly process, and we’re finally seeing what that looks like in practice.
Creative solutions
We have two brand new generations from AMD and Intel, neither of which really came out of the gate swinging. As you can read in my Core Ultra 9 285K review, Intel’s latest attempt pulls off a lot of impressive feats with its radically new design, but it still can’t hold up to the competition. And the Ryzen 9 9950X, although a clear upgrade over its Zen 4 counterparts, doesn’t deliver the generational improvements we’ve become accustomed to.
Consider this — looking at Cinebench R23, the multi-core jump from the Ryzen 9 5950X to the Ryzen 9 7950X was 36%. Between the Ryzen 9 7950X and Ryzen 9 9950X? 15%. That’s less than half the improvement within one generation. In Handbrake, the Ryzen 9 7950X sped up transcoding by 34% compared to the Ryzen 9 5950X. With the Ryzen 9 9950X, the improvement shrunk to just 13%.
This isn’t just one odd generation, either. Looking at the single-core performance of the Core i9-101900K and Core i9-12900K, Intel delivered a 54% improvement. Even comparing the Core i9-12900K, which is three generations old at this point, to the latest Core Ultra 9 285K, we see just a 20% improvement. Worse, the new Core Ultra series from Intel shows oddly high results in Cinebench, and if you break out to other applications, you can actually see some regressions compared to a generation or two back.
Even within just a few years, the rate of performance improvements has slowed considerably. Moore’s Law doesn’t directly talk about performance improvements — it’s simply concerned with the number of transistors on a chip. But that has clear performance implications. Throwing more transistors at the problem isn’t practical like it once was — read up on the death of Dennard scaling if you want to learn more why that’s the case.
AMD and Intel may not talk about it publicly, but both companies clearly see the writing on the walls. That’s likely why Intel pivoted to a hybrid architecture in the first place, and why it’s introduced a radical redesign with its Arrow Lake CPUs. And for AMD’s part, it’s no secret that 3D V-Cache has become a defining technology for the company’s CPUs, and it’s a clear way to skirt the bottleneck of Moore’s Law. A large chunk of transistors on any CPU die are dedicated to cache — somewhere in the range of 40% to 70% — and AMD is literally stacking more cache on top that it can’t fit onto the die.
A function of spaceOne important factor to keep in mind when looking at Moore’s Law and Dennard scaling is space. You can build a massive chip with a ton of transistors, sure, but how much power will it draw? Will it be able to stay under a reasonable temperature? Will it even be practical to place in a PC, or in the enterprise, a server? You cannot separate the number of transistors from the size of the die.
I’m reminded of a conversation I had with AMD’s Chris Hall, where we told me: “We were all enjoying Moore’s Law for a long time, but that’s sort of tailed off. And now, every square millimeter of silicon is very expensive, and we can’t afford to keep doubling. We can, we can build those chips, we know how to build them, but they become more expensive.”
I’m not here to defend Nvidia’s insane pricing strategy, but the company has reportedly seen higher pricing from TSMC with its RTX 40-series GPUs than it saw with Samsung with its RTX 30-series GPUs. And, the RTX 4090 does deliver more than twice the transistor count as the RTX 3090 at a very similar die size. If there’s a commitment to Moore’s Law across chips, I’m not sure we as consumers will like the outcome when it comes time to upgrade a PC.
That’s not to mention the other problems a card like the RTX 4090 has faced — high power requirements, an insane cooler size, and a melting power connector. Not all of these problems are a function of doubling the number of transistors, not even close, but it plays a role. Bigger chips for more transistors, more heat, and usually at a higher cost, especially as the cost of silicon continues to increase.
The shortcutMoore’s Law is dead, PC hardware is getting more expensive, and everything sucks — that’s not how I want to leave this. There will be more ways to deliver performance improvements year over year that doesn’t rely solely on more transistors on a chip at the same size. The way we’re getting there now is just different. I’m talking about AI.
Wait, don’t click off the article. Tech companies are excited about AI because it represents a lot of money — cynical as that perspective is, it’s just the way trillion-dollar corporations like Microsoft and Nvidia work. But AI also represents a way to bring a new form of computing. I’m not talking about a slew of AI assistants and hallucinatory chatbots, but rather applying machine learning to a problem to approximate results that we would previously get with pure silicon innovation.
Look at DLSS. The idea of using upscaling to maintain a certain level of performance is controversial, and it’s a nuanced conversation when it comes to individual games. But DLSS is enabling better performance without a strict hardware improvement. Add on top of that frame generation, which we now see from DLSS, FSR, and third-party tools like Lossless Scaling, and you have a lot of pixels that are never rendered by your graphics card.
A less controversial angle is Nvidia’s Ray Reconstruction. It’s no secret that ray tracing is demanding, and part of getting around that hardware demand is a process of denoising — limiting the number of rays, then cleaning up the resulting image with denoising. Ray Reconstruction delivers a result that would require far more rays and much more powerful hardware, and it does so without limiting performance at all — and once again, through machine learning.
It really doesn’t matter if Moore’s Law is dead or alive and well — if companies like AMD, Intel, and Nvidia want to stay afloat, they’ll continually need to think of solutions to address rising performance demands. Innovation is far from dead in PC hardware, but it might start to look a little different.
The Latest Tech News, Delivered to Your Inbox
The death of Moore’s Law is finally starting to stink
Jacob Roach / Digital Trends
Jacob Roach / Digital Trends © Provided by Digital Trends
Jacob Roach / Digital Trends © Provided by Digital Trends
Jacob Roach / Digital Trends
Intel is suffering a fall from grace as two other tech giants are reportedly circling like vultures.
Intel's nightmares come true: its new chip is unstable and two companies reportedly want to take over XDA Developers
 |
| | All Things Technology - Media and Know HOW | Pastime Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read |
|
| From: Don Green | 11/2/2024 3:54:56 PM | | | | | | Used tire-based solar desalination tech makes 3.67 liters of drinking water daily
Story by Mrigakshi Dixit
Nov 1,2024
Water scarcity is a global crisis, affecting millions of people around the world.
Researchers at Dalhousie University have developed a low-cost, solar-powered water desalination device.
This innovative device utilizes the power of the sun to purify seawater, making it safe to drink. It’s designed to be portable and easy to use, making it ideal for remote and underserved communities.
What makes this device stand out is its unconventional design, which incorporates recycled tires. These discarded materials are transformed into a key device component, providing a sustainable and affordable solution.
Shows promise in testingThis solar still technology was inspired by “refractory plasmonics,” a field focused on creating nanomaterials that can efficiently harness and convert light into heat. These materials, particularly effective in harsh conditions, are crucial for the solar still’s ability to desalinate water efficiently.
The device quickly desalinates water through a simple process.
Ocean water is drawn to the foam surface by a wicking system and evaporated by solar-heated plasmonic materials. The purified water vapor rises and condenses on the transparent dome, then flows down the sides into a sealed collection bag, leaving the salt behind.
Defying expectations, the device generated 3.67 liters of fresh water each day during the test in Halifax Harbour.
“Maximizing the use of sunlight means our plasmonic solar still can generate large amounts of water while maintaining a simple design,” said Matthew Margeson, one of the developers.
“It’s exciting to showcase the effectiveness of the still on a real-world scale and prove that this type of device has the potential to bring freshwater to places that desperately need it,” Margeson added.
Use of discarded tiresPrecious metals like gold and silver are commonly used in plasmonic materials, but their high cost limits their widespread use in developing countries. To make the solar still affordable, researchers are exploring the use of earth-abundant materials that can maintain high performance.
“We shouldn’t be making an expensive or very complicated device. It has to be easy to manufacture, last for a long time, and be easy to take apart and move,” said Mita Dasog, an associate professor of chemistry, and lead author.
Various carbon waste materials, such as coffee grounds, lobster shells, and birch wood residue, were tested for their suitability in the solar still. While all were effective, tire rubber emerged as the top performer.
Given their abundance and non-biodegradable nature, tires offer a valuable upcycling opportunity for this technology.
“This research perfectly aligns with the theme of Circular Economy Month by turning used tires into a crucial component of a water desalination device,” added Dasog in the press release.
Furthermore, the device can be modified to produce a small amount of electricity, sufficient to power on-board sensors that monitor water quality.
This simple yet effective device can provide clean drinking water to those in need, regardless of their location.
The researchers plan to test the device in South Asia next summer.
The findings were published in the journal iScience.
Used tire-based solar desalination tech makes 3.67 liters of drinking water daily
Used tire-based solar desalination tech makes 3.67 liters of drinking water daily
the-surprising-object
Graphical abstract. Credit: iScience |
| | All Things Technology - Media and Know HOW | Pastime Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read |
|
| From: Don Green | 11/3/2024 8:53:25 PM | | | | | | A Discussion on AI Chips in Personal Computing
Nov 3, 2024
Participant 1: ( ME) What are the benefits of having an AI chip in a laptop or desktop?
Participant 2: ( CHATGPT) AI chips enhance performance, energy efficiency, productivity, privacy, and user experience. They handle tasks like image recognition, natural language processing, and more efficiently than traditional CPUs. AI chips process data locally, improving privacy and extending battery life.
Participant 1: But without access to massive databases and datasets outside your laptop, what’s the value?
Participant 2: True, a lot of AI’s value comes from server-based resources. AI chips excel at speeding up on-device tasks like photo editing and voice recognition. They complement cloud-based AI rather than replace it, handling everyday tasks efficiently while the heavy lifting happens on servers.
Participant 1: I disagree with the marketing of AI in personal computing. Without resources like ChatGPT or Copilot, they seem overhyped and misleading.
Participant 2: You’re right. AI chips in personal devices enhance some tasks but don’t match server-based AI capabilities. Think of them as a handy multitool, not a fully-equipped workshop. They add value but in a different, more limited scope.
Participant 1: So, for deep analysis of an extensive Excel data sheet, an AI chip on a laptop would be useless without supporting resources like ChatGPT?
Participant 2: Exactly. For deep analysis, server-based AI is key. AI chips can speed up processes but don’t replace the robust capabilities of cloud-based AI. They’re useful for quick tasks but not for heavy lifting.
Participant 1: I thought local analysis would enhance privacy, but deep analysis needs external resources.
Participant 2: Right. Local AI chips keep your data private but for in-depth analysis, cloud-based AI provides the necessary computational power. Balancing both offers the best of privacy and performance. |
| | All Things Technology - Media and Know HOW | Pastime Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read |
|
| From: Don Green | 11/4/2024 8:27:21 PM | | | | | | A summary of a conversation I had with ChatGPT regarding Apple's Innovation.
- Historical Context: Apple’s Evolution as an Innovation Icon
Apple's foundation was built on redefining user interaction with technology, and this ethos has consistently been reflected through a series of groundbreaking products and cultural shifts that defined entire industries:
- Early Disruptive Products: Apple’s earliest hits, the Apple II and Macintosh, were more than just innovative pieces of hardware; they represented a cultural revolution. The Apple II made computing accessible to a broader consumer base, moving it from niche enthusiasts or corporate settings to individual homes. The Macintosh, with its revolutionary graphical user interface (GUI) and mouse, introduced users to a more intuitive way of interacting with computers, making technology accessible to artists, educators, and non-technical users. This early emphasis on user experience and creativity established Apple as an emblem of both technological innovation and cultural progressiveness.
- Resurgence with Design and Ecosystem: In the late 1990s, under Steve Jobs’ return, the iMac arrived as a bold statement not just technologically but aesthetically. The translucent, colorful design, in stark contrast to the beige boxes of its competitors, demonstrated that technology could also be an art form. This was a turning point that redefined computers as lifestyle products rather than just productivity tools. The introduction of macOS (formerly OS X) tied hardware and software together in a seamless experience, foreshadowing Apple’s strategic “walled garden” approach.
- Redefining Entire Industries: Apple’s trajectory took a profound turn with the launch of the iPod in 2001. The combination of iTunes and the iPod redefined how people purchased and interacted with music, creating a seamless digital ecosystem that ultimately disrupted the entire music industry. Then came the iPhone in 2007, which not only redefined smartphones but also created a whole new platform for mobile applications, forever altering the way we communicate, work, and entertain ourselves. The iPhone’s successful blend of hardware, software, and services established Apple’s prowess in integrating an entire ecosystem where the sum was far greater than its parts.
These milestones underscore Apple’s evolution into a tech leader—not just by creating exceptional products but by reshaping user expectations and entire industries. Apple's holistic control over both hardware and software cemented its reputation for quality and integration, a hallmark that made the slowdown in recent innovation particularly noticeable.
- Recent Trends: Incrementalism Over Transformation
Recent updates to core Apple products, especially the iPhone, suggest a noticeable shift from transformative leaps to more gradual, incremental improvements.
- Feature Fatigue: The annual iterations of the iPhone have brought incremental upgrades, such as improved camera systems, slightly enhanced battery life, and new titanium bodies in the Pro models. While these updates add quality and refine the user experience, the “wow” factor of earlier iPhones is largely absent. Apple’s focus has shifted towards nuanced improvements that are often technical rather than experiential—making it harder to differentiate between generations and, consequently, to justify the premium pricing for users.
- Limited New Offerings: In the last decade, Apple’s focus on iterating its existing product lines rather than launching groundbreaking new categories has become evident. The Apple Watch and AirPods represented the last major product launches that found mass market traction. Since then, Apple has largely relied on annual product cycles, with the iPhone continuing to anchor its ecosystem. This reliance potentially signals a risk of stagnation, as users may grow more price-sensitive or attracted to unique features offered by competitors, such as foldable devices from Samsung or advancements in AI integration by Google.
- Mac Pro and Professional Tools: Declining Appeal for Professionals
Historically, Apple’s Mac Pro series served as a workhorse for creative professionals—video editors, 3D artists, developers, and musicians who needed both power and flexibility. However, recent models have alienated some of these users:
- Locked Ecosystem Limitations: The 2019 Mac Pro brought back some of the modularity and expandability that professionals loved, but the subsequent shift to Apple Silicon has reintroduced constraints. The current M-series Mac Pro models do not allow third-party GPU upgrades or certain other component swaps, locking users into a pre-determined configuration. This restriction clashes with the very flexibility that power users value, hindering the ability to modify or enhance systems as project requirements change.
- Performance vs. Flexibility: The M-series chips deliver remarkable performance metrics, particularly in terms of efficiency and integration, yet they lack the modularity that allowed users to upgrade their systems over time. Power users—those who often require GPU upgrades or specialized hardware—have increasingly found Apple's latest pro offerings limiting. As a result, many have shifted towards Windows workstations or custom Linux setups that offer a more tailored and upgradeable experience.
This decline in flexibility is significant, as it signals a loss of faith among some of Apple’s most loyal professional users—those who helped build the brand’s credibility in creative industries.
- Media and Entertainment Devices: Mixed Success and Market Reception
Apple’s ventures into media and entertainment devices have had varying degrees of success, highlighting the challenges of entering crowded and fast-evolving markets:
- Apple TV: Despite the quality of Apple TV 4K and its integration with the Apple ecosystem, it struggles against cheaper alternatives like Amazon Fire Stick and Google Chromecast. Without significant exclusive features, Apple TV lacks the competitive edge to dominate in an already commoditized streaming device market. Its main advantage—integration with other Apple services—makes it appealing primarily to those who are deeply invested in the Apple ecosystem, rather than the average consumer.
- Vision Pro: Announced with much fanfare, the Apple Vision Pro is a mixed-reality headset that aims to integrate AR/VR into everyday life. However, its high price point, along with a lack of clearly defined use cases that resonate with the average consumer, has led to mixed reviews and lukewarm enthusiasm. The Vision Pro’s narrative as a futuristic, all-encompassing device hasn't yet translated into a practical must-have, unlike the iPhone or iPad, whose value propositions were immediately clear.
Without a distinct user-centric approach, these products risk being viewed as niche luxury items rather than transformative mainstream offerings. This highlights the difficulty Apple faces in diversifying away from its reliance on the iPhone.
- Financial Focus and Profit-Driven Strategy Over Innovation
Apple’s immense success with the iPhone has naturally shifted its incentives towards maintaining and maximizing its profit streams, yet this approach may come at a cost to its innovation edge:
- iPhone Dependency: The iPhone accounts for over half of Apple’s revenue, creating a significant risk if market dynamics shift. The dependence on iPhone sales has led to risk aversion in exploring groundbreaking technologies that might not immediately contribute to revenue growth. The focus remains on predictable, incremental improvements to keep existing users upgrading rather than pursuing the sort of disruptive innovation that characterized Apple’s earlier years.
- Product Line Consolidation: The current Apple lineup shows consolidation around a few core products, with much of the innovation aimed at boosting services and subscriptions rather than hardware breakthroughs. Services like iCloud, Apple Music, and Apple Fitness+ generate substantial recurring revenue but also reflect a more cautious approach to hardware innovation, focusing instead on monetizing existing platforms.
This profit-driven model delivers financial stability, but it raises questions about Apple’s future position as a leader in innovation if the balance between immediate profits and long-term pioneering products continues to tip in favor of the former.
- Competitive Landscape and Market Dynamics: Rising Competition from Open Ecosystems
As Apple has focused on its “walled garden” approach, the competitive landscape has evolved, with rivals presenting compelling alternatives that emphasize openness, adaptability, and rapid innovation:
- Samsung and Hardware Innovation: Samsung’s advancements in foldable technology and dynamic AMOLED displays offer a fresh perspective on mobile hardware. Devices like the Galaxy Z Fold and Z Flip present novel form factors that capture consumer imagination—offering something genuinely different at a time when Apple’s offerings feel increasingly iterative.
- Google’s AI and Open Ecosystem: Google has focused on AI integration and open platform compatibility, as seen in products like Pixel phones and the development of Google Assistant. The company’s emphasis on seamless AI-driven experiences across devices gives users a level of flexibility that Apple’s tightly controlled ecosystem doesn’t always provide. Features like Call Screen and AI photo editing appeal directly to user convenience, contrasting with Apple’s more conservative, privacy-centric approach to AI.
- Microsoft and Cloud-Connected Devices: Microsoft has leveraged its position in both software and hardware with devices like the Surface Pro series, along with a growing emphasis on cloud services like Azure and Microsoft 365. This synergy has allowed Microsoft to appeal to both enterprise customers and creatives, positioning itself as a versatile solution for work and creativity—two domains that Apple once led but now finds itself challenged in.
While Apple’s closed ecosystem guarantees a level of quality and seamlessness, the growing focus on interoperability and cross-platform flexibility by competitors is resonating with a segment of users that value adaptability, particularly as more devices and services become part of daily life.
- Conclusion and Recommendations: Reclaiming Apple’s Innovation Edge
To reconnect with its image as a leader in groundbreaking innovation, Apple may need to consider several strategic shifts:
- Diversify Risk and Product Innovation: Reducing dependency on the iPhone as the primary revenue source could allow Apple to take bolder steps into new product categories. Next-generation technologies like augmented reality (AR) glasses or health and wellness innovations that focus on medical-grade capabilities could be avenues where Apple can make a significant impact, combining its hardware-software integration expertise with new fields.
- Revamp Professional Products with Flexibility: Revisiting the approach to professional hardware could help Apple regain trust and loyalty from power users. Introducing upgradability options and restoring some degree of hardware customization for products like the Mac Pro could reposition Apple as the go-to choice for developers, creatives, and enterprise clients who demand flexibility and power.
- Refocus Media Ventures on Unique User Value: Products like Vision Pro and Apple TV should focus on affordability, clear functionality, and unique use cases. To make mixed-reality mainstream, Apple must illustrate why the average person would want and need the Vision Pro in their daily lives, making the device indispensable rather than a luxury.
- Embrace Selective Open Integration: To attract users who seek greater adaptability, Apple could explore ways to selectively open its ecosystem—integrating better with third-party platforms without compromising security or user experience. This could mean enhancing cross-platform compatibility with services like Android or Windows while still maintaining the core elements of Apple’s quality control and privacy standards.
By implementing these strategies, Apple could reinvigorate its image as an innovator and remain competitive in a rapidly changing tech landscape. Recapturing the pioneering spirit that led to the iPod, iPhone, and MacBook would allow Apple to redefine markets, inspire users, and maintain its position at the forefront of technology—not merely as a luxury brand but as a true leader in shaping the future of tech. |
| | All Things Technology - Media and Know HOW | Pastime Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read |
|
| |
