The 2025 date was never realistic. It was bandied to capitalize on the chip shortage of 2021 and 2022 to try to force CHIPS Act through Congress.
The shift from 2027 to 2030 is the first material slippage -- and reflects one or two things (or both!): 14A process technology timeline and/or soft foundry demand from the fabless firms.
PRO-TIP: when unloading the dishwasher start from the bottom and work your way up. Doing so prevents an accidental, upside-down cup or bowl from spilling water on your clean dishes beneath.
I feel that the usage of terms like “heat dome” and “polar vortex” obscure or distract from the human-centric causes of climate change. Lazy reasoning stops at these boogeyman terms. Welcome someone more familiar with linguistics to opine.
Those terms describe weather phenomena, not causes of those phenomena.
The terms are used by folks like NOAA, not just news trying to get ad eyeballs, so I think the accusation of "boogeyman terms" seems unfounded. They have no reason to mint scary terms.
I don’t see that people will follow that line of thinking. i’ve never heard these terms until recently, and my instinct was to assume that they’re new phenomena (clearly naive, but that’s just the immediate gut reaction). and given that weather shouldn’t really have new concepts at this point, i just automatically linked them to climate change.
That, and how the fick do you machine diamond... regular glass fiber optics needs to be cut to a smooth surface and fused together. The devices to do this use diamond-coated blades.
Oh, and diamond has a large birefringence due to its crystal structure, which would cause temporal smear in signals.
[A]s a general rule, challengers pursue interoperability while incumbents strive for incompatibility.
This is Strategy 101: seek to fight battles where you have the greatest advantage.
If Apple bought a mobile carrier it would be competing with its customers. Most phones are sold through carriers - meaning the carriers are buying iPhones not the end user.
Besides, Apple sells phones worldwide. What would be the benefit of just buying a carrier in the US?
Netflix made a similar calculation years ago. Netflix actually created what is now the Roku, but decided to spin it off to a separate company so it could more easily make deals to have Netflix installed everywhere without being seen as a competitor.
In a completely separate market, another example is that PepsiCo use to own KFC, Taco Bell, and Pizza Hut. But that made it harder for them to do deals with other fast food companies because they didn't want to make deals with a competitor.
> What would be the benefit of just buying a carrier in the US?
Buying a carrier would indeed be a bad move, both for competing with customers and maintaining a lot of infrastructure, but I could see Apple becoming an MVNO. Wireless companies are right down there with Comcast and the airlines in terms of customer satisfaction, so I would guess there are plenty of people willing to pay a bit more for a less hostile carrier.
100% yes, Apple should own this part of the experience. Increasingly, their devices are requiring constant connectivity. The Apple Watch comes into it's own with cellular - but the experience of adding it to my carrier (EE in UK) was absolutely horrific and an absolute nightmare.
A carrier should just be dumb pipes. Slowly, Apple has been eroding the value that a carrier adds (the iPhone Upgrade Program being the single biggest shot fired towards carriers). I would love to never, ever have to deal with a carrier and their scammy sales tactics ever again.
What can Apple gain from being a carrier? Seamless set up of devices and international roaming. In Europe, we already have data roaming across borders and it is incredible to have a device "just work" when I step off a plane. Bringing the "it just works" mentality to the service layer makes a lot of sense for Apple now. Importantly, unlike carriers, Apple doesn't need the cell network in and of itself to make money. It just serves to push the model this article articulates so well.
The biggest barrier they are going to face is the connectivity issue - they can make the best augmented reality glasses or cellular AirPods, or wireless, portable outdoor speakers, but without seamless connectivity, they won't be able to "just work". The rollout of 5G might just be the opportunity they need to execute on this.
Without looking at Crunchbase, please name one other investment of Shervin Pishevar that has the cultural reach of Uber. I suspect a randomly selected person would not be able to do so. And Uber has a well documented history of hostile or discriminatory behavior that hews close to the article's topic.
He's a little bit more than merely an Uber investor. Quoting: "He is a strategic advisor to Uber, and served as a board advisor to the company from 2011–2015." [1]
He also invested in many more companies than merely Uber. [1]
Therefore a case can be made for both keeping Uber as well as removing Uber from the title.
I, like most people, didn't even recognize the name Shervin Pishevar. Of course I do recognize Uber, so putting Uber in the title when the story is not about Uber is clickbait.
Did you read article? The first 4 paragraphs are about Pishevar's behavior toward an Uber employee. And at least one incident occurred at an Uber event (2014 holiday party). To say that this story has "nothing to do with [Uber]" is inaccurate or, worse, willfully blind.
Yes, he allegedly harassed an Uber employee, but he didn't work for Uber, the alleged harassment took place outside of the office, there is no allegation that he used his position as an investor in Uber to take any adverse action against the woman, and nothing in the article indicates that the harassment was ever reported to Uber, so there is nothing here that would indicate that Uber is at fault.
Meanwhile, the woman who was allegedly harassed refused to comment for the article, so with regards to that particular allegation it is just gossip.
The shift from 2027 to 2030 is the first material slippage -- and reflects one or two things (or both!): 14A process technology timeline and/or soft foundry demand from the fabless firms.