It is sequel time?

Skylake was launched in late 2015 with Apple probably doing QA in early 2015. M1 was launched in 2020 so 5 years.

Also it was not the start of Apple making their own chips; Apple did not start in a vacuum. They had been making A series chips for a while before then. And as you stated they may have had prototypes for years. Skylake was the point where Apple finally decided Intel was not going to work out anymore.

Me: “I swear honey, it’s not 1.5TB of porn. It’s JWST data.”

1) The word “can” has not been demonstrated yet. Didn’t the last Starship explode on a test flight on May 27, 2025? It certainly would not be cheaper if telescope explodes before reaching orbit.

2) Since Starship has not yet successfully delivered a payload, what is the actual cost per launch? The estimates are $100M but that is factoring it is reusable and not debris after every launch.

3) Why would any telescope use Starship when it can use other rockets, even SpaceX Falcon ones? Telescopes are not necessarily pushing 100+ tons.

The next telescope is the Nancy Grace Roman telescope scheduled for 2027 launch. It is a wide field infrared telescope that weighs 4.5 tons.

Ghosts now? Maybe you need a doctor and Ghostbusters?

And the fact Intel stagnated on chip design and production for 5 years had nothing to do with it? Also their quality suffered. An Intel insider believes the bad Skylake QA was the final straw for Apple to migrate off Intel.

You should have seen that doctor before now.

IBM was willing to make laptop chips for Apple; however, they were not going to meet Apple's requirements for power efficiency. Also Apple needed improvements almost yearly from chips. That's a lot of R&D for one customer. And Apple was always going to be a small customer to IBM. I think even IBM's own server systems would be a bigger customer to IBM.

Not exactly. Jobs wanted improvement year to year. Increase in chip speed was only one thing. You are correct in asserting IBM did not want yearly changes but it was not just about clock speed. The G5 was a good first attempt at consumer chips; Apple was going to need more changes for future chips. IBM wanted Apple to buy the same chip for years with little change. IBM can get away with that strategy on the server side, not the consumer side.

And that didn't happen. Motorola could never keep up. IBM was the only one that had any chance; however, what Apple wanted was constant updates to the chips. Neither Motorola nor IBM was willing to do that. Most chipmakers would prefer to make one model for years and years without changes, maybe only a node shrink. For example, IBM designed the Xbox 360 chip. It basically the same chip in production for 11 years with 4 node shrinks. For Apple, it was never going to get better going forward. There is a reason why there was never a laptop G5 chip. IBM would not invest in designing a power efficient mobile chip; none of their Power systems were laptops.

And how are you sure about that? IBM has never made an efficient mobile Power chip for laptops. Never. All IBM Power systems at the time were for servers and workstations where power efficiency is not really a factor. Whether IBM was capable also ignores the main issue that R&D costs money. IBM would have had to spend tens of millions of R&D for one customer that might purchase a few million chips at best. Then the next year more R&D would be required. IBM was going to get way more orders from Microsoft and Sony for chips that would not change year to year.

And the fact that Intel stagnated on chip designs for more than 5 years had nothing to do with that?

Not at the mercy of yet another chip supplier that could not deliver chips. First it was Motorola. Then it was IBM. Then it was Intel. Could Apple switched to AMD? Sure. But it would could have been the same issue again, different supplier.

You couldn't bothered to read the second sentence of the summary? "They will, however, continue to receive security updates for a few more years."

Title says: "Apple Will End Support For Intel Macs Next Year ". Second sentence says, "They will, however, continue to receive security updates for a few more years." Intel Macs are not EOL. They just will not get newer versions of MacOS after next year. How about: "MacOS 26 'Tahoe' will be last version for Intel Macs"

I do not argue it is not possible. I and others do not think Meta is capable of this. This is a company that has existed based on their ability to take things for free like data. Inventing things I would argue is not their strength. Remember Zuckerberg has been complaining for months that Apple won't let him steal their technology. Communication between AirPods and other Apple devices like iPhones uses a proprietary wireless protocol Apple invented. All these devices use Bluetooth for non-Apple connections. Zuckerberg wanted to use this protocol (presumably for their VR headsets). Apple would not allow him to use technology they spent time and money to develop. Zuckerberg will complain to anyone who will listen about how "unfair" Apple is being, and how Apple is "hamstringing" the industry. How about Meta design their own wireless protocol like Apple did? Because Meta is unwilling to spend the millions it would require when they can take it for free.

Electrical equipment failure? Again, you should have that checked out.

The problem is that it is broken. Paper strips worked great in past decades when airports had fewer flights. Some US airports have almost 200 flights per hour. Paper strips are hard to use in that case.

When we hear of things like this, the main reason they still exist is that no replacement has been installed. Often times that is because no replacement has been funded. Infrastructure upgrades are unlikely to get funded over new and shiny things.