As someone who was briefly the world's youngest person, I can confirm it is an interesting alternate feeling to have no one on the planet alive after you.
>Why are the manufacturers so insistent on not providing small phones?
They don't sell.
Apple killed the iPhone mini due to low sales. Asus replaced the universally lauded Zenfone 10 with a very large Zenfone 11. Google increased the size of the Pixel 6 when compared to its predecessor. Sales also increased.
It's weird though that there apparently isn't a market for even one high-end small phone, from any manufacturer.
I wonder if to some extent they're not different enough. The iPhone mini has a 5.4" screen. Not so long ago we managed well enough with 4" iPhone screens. I wonder how a 4.5" version would sell - call it the iPhone Nano.
Unfortunately a lot of apps don't support those smaller screen sizes so well anymore. But people who want a small phone that's easy to carry around, who won't be using it for hours a day, don't always need many apps.
Maybe we'll get lucky and they'll occasionally re-introduce a mini phone like McDonald's does with the McRib.
Somewhere there's gotta be numbers that show "there are people who buy minis, but they only buy a phone every few years, so let's make a mini every third model year" or something.
It costs a lot of money to make multiple versions of something, compared to having just one version. The amount of profit they were getting from the mini wasn't enough compared to the regular model, and they correctly deduced that if they eliminated the mini, everyone would just buy the larger model instead so they could decrease their manufacturing and design costs.
If you're an Apple user, would you switch to Android just to get a smaller phone? Or would you just bite the bullet and get the larger iPhone after the mini is discontinued? Apple knows that 99.99% of Apple users are in the second group.
> If you're an Apple user, would you switch to Android just to get a smaller phone?
I would never be an Apple user.
And that's relevant here, because this argument doesn't apply to Android users, and yet Android phone manufacturers are just as insistent on not making smaller phones.
> It costs a lot of money to make multiple versions of something, compared to having just one version.
I really wanted a 12 mini but the shortened battery life made it a no-go for me. Ended up with a standard 12 and am still happy with it years later aside from it being slightly larger than I would like.
I don't do it "to stick it" to anyone. I am just not willing to spend 500$+ since my current hardware is perfectly fine and does what I want. Saving money and avoiding unnecessary e-waste is more important to me.
Market leader in what? Intel's Q2 revenue is over double that of AMD's. Intel still controls well over 60% of the x86 space. Intel and AMD's most performant x86 offerings are fairly close to each other.
Performance. Intel still manages to squeak out some wins against AMD when it comes to single-threaded CPU task but in every other metric, they are chasing AMD.
Not only in performance, but also in profits, as shown by the Intel vs. AMD financial results. Especially in the server CPU market segment, where Intel has a diminishing market share and losses of billions, while AMD has an increasing market share and profits.
The new Zen 5 has much better single-thread performance than any Intel CPU (e.g. the slower 5.5 GHz Zen 5 launched this week matches a 6.0 GHz Raptor Lake), so for a couple of months, until Intel launches Arrow Lake S, AMD will have much better single-thread performance. After that, Intel and AMD will be again at parity, with negligible differences in ST speed.
Power too. I think we're still in the happy place where buying epyc is cheaper than being given xeons for free after you look at the electricity bill over the life of the machine.
Is this actually true? At 200w power draw 24/365 you're talking 1800kwh. at 0.2$/kwh that's 360$.
These server processors seem to be charged out at multiple thousands of dollars. Is the difference in efficiency in server actually as large as claimed? Surely a sufficient discount on the capital cost of a processor can more than make up for extra power usage.
I guess it all depends on the comparative price/power consumption, it just feels like the difference would have to be rather large to me.
You're not considering the core count difference. Amd has 128cores 256 threads at 2.2ghz at 360w tdp while Intel has 144c/144t, @ 2.2ghz @ 330w Tdp. Cloud providers care about density and power usage.
More cores per server = less power = more servers per rack = more capacity = more opportunities for sales of products.
I'm not really in the space - I was curious. I think people tend to overstate the importance of power consumption relative to the price of the products they buy and the value of their time (eg. if it's a workstation part, higher performance is worth a significant tradeoff in power if it gets jobs like compilation done 10% faster based on the employee time it can save)
For servers, I'm always curious because even though they run 24/365 (so power consumption is v.important), the capital cost of new server chips is incredibly high - eg. those 144c chips I presume you're referring to cost 10k+, so even over a 5y service life that's probably only 20% of the chip only, and relative to the AMD chip the additional inefficiency could easily by compensated by an appropriate discount.
Obviously all of this is why intel still exists in the DC, they just can't charge the same prices as AMD can is all.
With great power comes great heat output. Lower power = lower heat output = lower bill for cooling. or the same bill at more capacity = more margin = more profit for the cloud providers :)
Or the other thing to consider is, less power usage on a global scale = less co2 output.
It looks like the gap has narrowed, though TDP might not mean what it once did. The comparison I remember is a 64 core Rome chip against two 28 core xeons where the Rome one was significantly faster and something like 1/3 the power consumption of the dual. I've got one of those 64C chips and haven't followed the market as closely since.
At least for consumer desktop CPUs AMD is significantly ahead for gaming (with X3D) while for MT/productivity workloads Intel and AMD seem to be pretty even (if we ignore power usage and the whole melting CPU thing..). Which makes since Intel generally offers more cores per $ these days.
I'm surprised there aren't more mentions of sector specific funds. I know Vanguard has/had sector specific mutual funds, so maybe I'll see if there are ETF variations of those.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Not seeing exceptions for a tit for tat trade embargo or a Chinese company here.
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
> Not seeing exceptions for a tit for tat trade embargo or a Chinese company here.
It's not that simple. I don't see any exceptions for laws against defamation, child porn either, or limits on foreign ownership of TV stations, yet they're there.
Huawei is an example. Foreign companies don’t have the same rights, in large part because of national security concerns. For example is the concern is that a China is trying to infringe on American rights, such as using algorithms, then it’s a moot argument to say TikTok is protected by us law.
> China is trying to infringe on American rights, such as using algorithms
There is no constitutionally protected right for American citizens to not be subjected to propaganda. In fact, it's quite the opposite, since propaganda has been specifically identified as a form of speech protected by the first amendment.
