kzeise.com

The pricing matrix for the M3 has become quite complicated:

Processor	8GB	16GB	18GB	24GB	36GB	48GB	64GB	96GB	128GB
M3-	-200	0		200
M3	0	200		400
M3 Pro			400		800
M3 Pro+			600		1000
M3 Max					1400			2200
M3 Max+						1900	2100		2900

This looks like an attempt to steer people to manage Max and Max+ demand, especially the lack of a 64GB Max variant.

Tidbits:

• the improved graphics cache for the Pro/Max models provides a surprising amount of extra graphics power. This moves them much closer to top class graphics performance.

• memory bandwidth for M3 Pro is only 150GB/s, M3 Max 300 GB/s and M3 Max+ 400GB/s

• the neural engine did not get any more cores, contrary to the 32 cores now on the A17 Pro.

• while SSD prices have halved in the last year, Apple has kept their prices the same.

• memory pricing remains the same. Cost for extra memory up to 36GB remains high, and double the price for later increments. Mobile DDR5 is $120 per 16GB, DDR5X maybe $150.

Update 08.11. As John Gruber has pointed out, the complications are basically a function of using 2, 3 or 4 memory chips with the processor. He also would have liked a 48GB M3 Pro model, something that would be the correct mobile sweet spot. After all an M3 Pro can already draw 50W under full load, and would become quite warm under continuous load. That 6+6 configuration looks quite sweet to keep heat in check.

I suspect it does not exist because it would clearly show the kinks in Apples memory pricing, a lamentable victory of marketing over user needs.

The iPhone mini is no more, and it is not very surprising. As already said, it was still too big, it should have been 59mm by 120mm to be great phone to use one handed. The sad part is that the new camera system and the reduced size of the front cutout would have provided the ingredients that would have made even a photographer switch:

• With the main camera of the 14 Pro, augmented with the flash and Lidar only, we would have a very compact, yet capable camera with 24mm f/6.3 and 48mm f/12.6 options¹. If size required, I would even forgo the wide angle macro lens, even though the main camera only offers 1:3 magnification at 48mm.

• We would still have a 5″ screen, enough for information on the go. And with CarPlay a larger size is no longer desired for navigation.

• The improvements in battery life seen in the 14 Pro, including the always on screen, mean that even at the smaller size we can now provide 12 hour active battery life.

I really hope that like with the iPad mini, this phone will be offered on a 3 yearly update schedule. Long enough run to amortize the development costs, and now that annual performance gains are “just” in the 10% to 20% range, it will remain current long enough.

Rumors are that Apple will not provide an update for the iPhone 13 mini, because of disappointing sales. I believe this is because it is not mini enough. The standard size iPhone is just small enough to hold in one hand, and scroll through content, and the mini is already too large for typing one handed.

The main culprit is the width. 64.2mm are 5.6mm more than the 5, and only 2.8mm less than the 6. It does not feel small in hand, it feels pretty close to a 6.

I believe Apple should recognize that the mini is a speciality phone, put it onto a triennial update schedule, and make it small:

• 59 mm width would make it fit nicely into a hand again

• 120g weight is the sweet point so that it does not feel too dense

• 9mm depth would still be acceptable if needed.

For the small size, some compromises will be necessary. Important is to keep the battery life of the 13 mini, the full frontal screen with Face ID, and front and back cameras. With corona, adding Touch ID to the power button as well would be nice. I prefer having only one large back lens, similar to the normal on the 13 Pro, together with Lidar to provide some depth sensing. It does not need mmWave support, the standard 5G bands can provide 100 Mbit/s easily. It does not need a glass back, a combination of aluminium and carbon fibers can keep the weight down.

My 45mm Watch has arrived, in a nice midnight blue.

The color is much darker than I was originally afraid of. It is very close to black, even closer than dark navy suits, and so can be easily combined with any color. I like it better than the space gray of my old watch.

It is quite large. If you wear long sleeves, it is most noticeable, as now a part of the watch will remain covered when casually raising it. Unlike the 38mm/42mm of the original, which registered as normal/small, 45mm/41mm should now be seen as large/normal. If you are in doubt about the size, get the 41mm.

First thing I was looking at was replacing my trusty old Modular face with the new Infograph Modular. I was in for a shock of ugliness.

The purple face now has a dominant color of white. I understand that on a small display you will want white for the best constrast when the text is small, and this is done correctly in the temperature range, but what is the point of changing the color when it only changes a small accent? You can also see that the 60% text is not properly aligned.

Interestingly, other faces use an inverted color scheme for the complications, as the new Contour face.

And both are not appropriate. For readability we want all tiny text in white, no point of adding information if you cannot read it. You also want enough contrast in the dial, not one color where you have trouble seeing the important detail.

Instead, I would use the colors differently to ensure both pretty good readability, and to keep our color the dominant element in the interface:

The new Apple silicon for the Mac starts with a chip that provides roughly the same performance as the top end Intel chip in MacBooks, while consuming so little power that the new Air no longer has a fan.

The transition will likely go smoothly. As we no longer have self modifying code, translation of x64 code to ARM is now feasible at reasonable performance, and the chip has enough headroom for the losses incurred.

The new Mac mini is a missed opportunity: with the same underlying architecture as Apple TV, it would have been nice to see a home focused variant, that includes Apple TV, and serves as a home server as well as a WiFi router.

The architecture is now tightly integrated, with shared memory for all blocks. I wonder how this will translate to higher performance configurations. Either you go for really large chips to keep the integration, or you need multiple chips with corresponding problems in synchronizing memory. I suspect that large chips are now feasible, with dozens units you can plan for disabling a few to avoid defects, and the caches could be 16 way, allowing you to disable one way where you find defects.

With any multi chip solution you have limited bandwidth to address cache coherency issues, and congestion accessing the shared memory. This is why massively parallel computers put their emphasis on fast links between nodes, and not on a fast, shared memory.

The iPhone now has four variants for the mainstay 12: 12 mini, 12, 12 Pro and 12 Pro Max. The technical differences are relatively small, and much of the consideration boils down to the phone size you prefer.

The Pro’s have lidar, 6 GB RAM, and three lenses. On the normal Pro the extra lens is 52mm, on the Pro Max 65mm with better stabilization. The Pro Max also has a better 26mm lens, adding roughly half a stop more light gathering. This gives three levels of camera performance, with the base level already great for most casual shots. If you want more, you might want to consider something like the RX100 VII, which is not too heavy, and complements the phone quite nicely.

Unfortunately, the Pro models have worse materials in their design: the steel bands add to the weight, non glossy backs make them more difficult to hold, and the color choices are boring.

The main difference really is the size: the Max is too large for one handed operation, the middle size is kind of OK for men, and the mini is the best one. Without the margins, the mini has 15% more screen than the 2nd gen SE, and this is sufficient, especially if you have an iPad as well.

Personally, I like having the 52mm enough that I am willing to compromise on size to get the Pro, but it is not really what I want: camera system of the Pro, size of the mini, but about 2-3mm thicker to accommodate a larger battery and to hide the camera bump.

PS: After a month the 12 Pro still feels too large and heavy. Just enough to irritate me, not enough to dump the phone. It affirms that the phone I really want is the 12 Pro mini outlined above.

I find the implementation of the dock in iOS 11 annoying in a few small ways:

When you access the task switcher, tapping onto the background takes you to your home screen. But if you leave via the home button, you get back to your previous screen, no matter whether it is an app or the home screen. Because the task switcher also contains the quick access buttons, it means extra mental load when I just want to change a setting. Tapping on the background should always return you to your previous screen. If you want quick access to the home screen from the switcher, it should be a separate, clearly indicated area. Maybe it would be a small home strip above the spaces display.

It is too easy to accidentally kill an app. The flick to destroy gesture is very satisfying, but too easy to trigger when you grab an app and are just playing with the animation. Something like the trash can would be great to improve this.

To add an app not in the dock to side by side, you start dragging with one finger on the home screen, then open the app switcher, and then drag the app to the correct space. If you are not fast enough, you often open the wrong space. Instead I suggest that dragging an icon to the right or left of the dock should place the app into side by side with the most recently opened app. Dragging it there will provide feedback in the form of an animation, just like dragging an icon from the dock to the sides while an app is active. If you keep hovering a bit, the most recent app will come back to the foreground. The area to the side is large enough that accidental activation should not be an issue.

There are also a few bugs. Quite often the task switcher view forgets to blur the background. Also in the home screen, if you show your widgets, go back to the apps, and then rotate the screen, the docks stays in place. I am a bit worried about the last bug, because it seems like a problem that anyone using the iPad handheld would have quickly spotted.

We tend to attribute to multitouch some magical properties that single handily caused the iPhone to win. But this is forgetting that there already was a pretty convincing path to success in the Palm Treo. Having a pocket computer with connectivity was already very desirable when the iPhone debuted. The power of multitouch was that it enabled a workable screen keyboard, in combination with autocorrect, which in turn doubled the available screen area. This was such a compelling advantage, together with allowing you to use your fingers pretty naturally, that everyone had to change their interaction model.¹

But Apple also did base iOS on Unix, just when processors became fast enough to support it even with the tight power budgets of a phone. At the time the competition was still using 16bit processors, and had operating systems that had much less abstraction and robustness. It was this double that prevented the phone competition from responding in a timely manner, and allowed Google with a PC background to establish Android.

When we look at shipments, we see that it took until around 2010 for the old manufacturers to suffer declining sales. That was actually a three year window in which Nokia or RIM could have responded. A window in which you had to implement two huge redesigns, and also embrace and establish an app market. And that turned out to be too big a task for RIM and Nokia to undertake by the time they finally came around embracing the change.