_Z8B1045
9to5google.com/2023/09/17/iphone-15-pro-titanium-essentia...
A look back at Essential Phone, the Android phone that beat iPhone 15 Pro to titanium
Apple this week launched the iPhone 15 Pro, its first smartphone made with a titanium frame. That launch will bring the material to the masses, but it also reminds us of 2017’s Essential Phone, the short-lived Android phone that had a premium build that was so far ahead of its time.
At a launch event for the Essential Phone, or "PH-1,", I was blown away by the hardware. The ceramic back and titanium frame were just so incredibly premium and well-crafted, and that’s an impression that lasts right down to today.
And, to a certain extent, I think Essential’s use of titanium might be better than Apple’s.
The polished titanium frame of the Essential Phone picks up fingerprints but at nowhere near the rate of the iPhone 15 Pro, which frankly looks gross based on hands-on coverage from our sister site 9to5Mac as well as other outlets such as The Verge. Presumably, that’s due to the brushed and slightly matte texture.
I’d also argue that the PH-1’s ceramic backing only further bolstered the premium frame, adding a material that ages way better than glass.
www.globaltimes.cn/page/202309/1298224.shtml
Hype on iPhone 'ban' shows US has a guilty conscience
The biggest destroyer of the global economic and trade order is being paranoid. This is perhaps the most incisive and vivid explanation of why the US government and media outlets have seen a rumored ban on iPhones as China's retaliation against the US.
US National Security Council spokesman John Kirby told reporters on Wednesday that the US believes China's reported move to institute and expand a government ban on iPhones "seems to be of a piece - of the kinds of aggressive and inappropriate retaliation to US companies ... That's what this appears to be," according to a Bloomberg report on Thursday.
Not only did the US official say it's retaliation, but US media outlets have hyped the rumored government ban and misinterpreted it as China's retaliation against Apple for the sake of Huawei.
But there are no laws, regulations or policy documents in China that prohibit the purchase and use of mobile phones of overseas brands, such as Apple. And compared to the situation faced by Apple in China, Huawei is far from receiving fair treatment in the US.
With no specific and detailed facts to verify the existence of such a ban, we have no idea why the US government and media outlets are so eager to escalate an unverified rumor as being China's retaliation. They could have communicated with the Chinese authorities first to clear up any misunderstandings. If they insist on making a political interpretation of a rumor, then the only reason is because they know they have done too many unconscionable things to suppress Chinese companies with unilateral sanctions, and they are too anxious and concerned about retaliation now. The concern in Washington is not toward Apple, but rather toward the sustainability of their unethical business practices.
There is no denying that after a series of security incidents involving Apple's iPhones, it is possible that some consumers, and not just in China, may be concerned about whether or not iPhones have higher security risks.
It will take time and facts for global consumers to find out whether iPhones have security risks. But one thing is certain - as long as Apple abides by Chinese laws and regulations and operates based on the rules of the international order, protecting consumers' data stored in their mobile phones to ensure information security, it would not face any policy barrier in China.
Despite some potential consumer concerns, US tech companies are doing pretty well in China. For instance, China overtook the US to become Apple's largest market in the second quarter of this year for the first time, according to research firm TechInsights. Also, Tesla's revenue in China reached $5.73 billion in the second quarter, up 51.33 percent year-on-year. The growth rate apparently outpaced the increase of its revenue in other global markets.
If anything, US sensitivity to a rumored ban only lays bare its anxiety about losing the market. Deep down, the root cause is that it knows what it has done to Chinese companies would arouse retaliation if it happened to US companies.
Indeed, US media outlets may not even be able to tell which American move the rumored Chinese ban on iPhones is in retaliation for, because there are too many cases of the US suppressing Chinese companies and products in the name of "national security."
Why didn't US media outlets question their own government's behavior, which sabotaged the international trade order in the first place? How brazen are they to label China as the party that retaliated without mentioning what the US did first?
To name a few issues, the US did not just impose strict sanctions on Huawei but also asked its allies to do the same. It exerted pressure on TikTok to force a sale of shares to American companies with hooligan means. Washington has also used so-called human rights issues as an excuse to sanction Chinese manufacturing sector and Chinese companies.
If Washington is really worried about Chinese retaliation and US companies' interests, why not reflect on what the US has done to China and its companies? Putting aside political calculations, which are not in the interest of bilateral economic relations, and returning to the path of seeking the right solution, is the most effective therapy for Washington's paranoia and anxiety.
_______
Here's the top reader comment on this Tom's Hardware article on the new Apple iPhone 15:
www.yahoo.com/finance/news/just-tried-iphone-15-pro-04011...
I'm disappointed. So the only real change is the "action button" which many Samsungs have had for years, as well as Nokia. The other "new" thing is the USB-C, courtesy of European Union regulation, not Apple's. But I do want to be fair; you can only come up with so much every 12 months. I wish Apple would adopt a keyboard with numbers like Android did ages ago. And also, a pause button for the video camera, like Android did ages ago. Also, I miss the ability to shut off the phone with one button, but that's a personal one..
www.pcgamer.com/apples-new-iphone-chip-has-us-worried-abo...
Apple's new iPhone chip has us worried about TSMC's 3nm silicon and next-gen GPUs
Not much faster, no more efficient and barely any more transistors.
For starters, the A17 Pro's transistor count bump over its A16 Bionic predecessor is pretty modest. It clocks in at 19 billion where the A16 had 16 billion.
... the modest uplift in transistors means the CPU core count hasn't changed. The A17 Pro has two performance and four efficiency cores, just like the A16.
What's more, Apple is only claiming 10% performance uplift from the new CPU. That's super disappointing from an SoC on a brand new production node. What's more, that 10% increase includes both the benefits of the TSMC N3 silicon and what Apple says are revised cores with wider decode and execution units.
TSMC itself says the N3 silicon should be good for 10% more performance alone. So you really would think the new node plus revised cores would add up to more than 10% overall.
Then there's power efficiency. Normally you'd expect a new node to offer lower power consumption for the same performance.
Despite all that, Apple isn't making any claims for improved battery life over the outgoing iPhone 14 Pro. The battery life rating of the 15 Pro is exactly the same as before.
Taken altogether, it's hard to see where the benefits of the new 3nm silicon are kicking in. The new SoC doesn't get a big uptick in transistor count. It's not enabling a major performance bump. And it doesn't seem to be much more efficient.
www.businessinsider.com/us-navy-chinas-shipbuilding-capac...
China has the capacity to build PLA combat ships at 200 times the rate that the US can, per leaked US Navy intelligence
▫️ China's shipbuilding capacity has dwarfed US capabilities, per leaked US Navy intelligence.
▫️ A Navy spokesperson confirmed the leaked material's authenticity to Fox News Digital.
▫️ China has the world's largest navy and could have a fleet of 440 ships by 2030, per the Pentagon.
China's shipbuilding capacity is 232 times greater than the US, per leaked US Navy intelligence.
A leaked US Navy briefing slide with the information circulated online in July, per The War Zone, an online newsletter. The slide was titled "PLAN vs. USN Naval Force Laydown," and appeared to be marked "unclassified."
According to the data seen in the slide, China's shipyards have a capacity of over 23.2 million tons, more than 232 times greater than the US capacity of less than 100,000 tons.
The slide also appears to contrast the "battle force composition" of both navies, taking into account "combatant ships, submarines, mine warfare ships, major amphibious ships, and large combat support auxiliary ships."
A US Navy spokesperson told Fox News Digital in an article published on September 14 that the briefing slide is authentic.
The spokesperson said the slide "provides context and trends on China's shipbuilding capacity," but warned that the Navy did not intend for it to be read as a comprehensive "deep dive" into China's commercial shipbuilding industry.
"The slide was developed by the Office of Naval Intelligence from multiple public sources as part of an overall brief on strategic competition," the spokesperson said.
China has been hard at work at bolstering its naval capabilities. The country has the world's largest navy, with more than 355 vessels in its fleet, per a US Naval Institute report from 2021.
_Z8B1045
9to5google.com/2023/09/17/iphone-15-pro-titanium-essentia...
A look back at Essential Phone, the Android phone that beat iPhone 15 Pro to titanium
Apple this week launched the iPhone 15 Pro, its first smartphone made with a titanium frame. That launch will bring the material to the masses, but it also reminds us of 2017’s Essential Phone, the short-lived Android phone that had a premium build that was so far ahead of its time.
At a launch event for the Essential Phone, or "PH-1,", I was blown away by the hardware. The ceramic back and titanium frame were just so incredibly premium and well-crafted, and that’s an impression that lasts right down to today.
And, to a certain extent, I think Essential’s use of titanium might be better than Apple’s.
The polished titanium frame of the Essential Phone picks up fingerprints but at nowhere near the rate of the iPhone 15 Pro, which frankly looks gross based on hands-on coverage from our sister site 9to5Mac as well as other outlets such as The Verge. Presumably, that’s due to the brushed and slightly matte texture.
I’d also argue that the PH-1’s ceramic backing only further bolstered the premium frame, adding a material that ages way better than glass.
www.globaltimes.cn/page/202309/1298224.shtml
Hype on iPhone 'ban' shows US has a guilty conscience
The biggest destroyer of the global economic and trade order is being paranoid. This is perhaps the most incisive and vivid explanation of why the US government and media outlets have seen a rumored ban on iPhones as China's retaliation against the US.
US National Security Council spokesman John Kirby told reporters on Wednesday that the US believes China's reported move to institute and expand a government ban on iPhones "seems to be of a piece - of the kinds of aggressive and inappropriate retaliation to US companies ... That's what this appears to be," according to a Bloomberg report on Thursday.
Not only did the US official say it's retaliation, but US media outlets have hyped the rumored government ban and misinterpreted it as China's retaliation against Apple for the sake of Huawei.
But there are no laws, regulations or policy documents in China that prohibit the purchase and use of mobile phones of overseas brands, such as Apple. And compared to the situation faced by Apple in China, Huawei is far from receiving fair treatment in the US.
With no specific and detailed facts to verify the existence of such a ban, we have no idea why the US government and media outlets are so eager to escalate an unverified rumor as being China's retaliation. They could have communicated with the Chinese authorities first to clear up any misunderstandings. If they insist on making a political interpretation of a rumor, then the only reason is because they know they have done too many unconscionable things to suppress Chinese companies with unilateral sanctions, and they are too anxious and concerned about retaliation now. The concern in Washington is not toward Apple, but rather toward the sustainability of their unethical business practices.
There is no denying that after a series of security incidents involving Apple's iPhones, it is possible that some consumers, and not just in China, may be concerned about whether or not iPhones have higher security risks.
It will take time and facts for global consumers to find out whether iPhones have security risks. But one thing is certain - as long as Apple abides by Chinese laws and regulations and operates based on the rules of the international order, protecting consumers' data stored in their mobile phones to ensure information security, it would not face any policy barrier in China.
Despite some potential consumer concerns, US tech companies are doing pretty well in China. For instance, China overtook the US to become Apple's largest market in the second quarter of this year for the first time, according to research firm TechInsights. Also, Tesla's revenue in China reached $5.73 billion in the second quarter, up 51.33 percent year-on-year. The growth rate apparently outpaced the increase of its revenue in other global markets.
If anything, US sensitivity to a rumored ban only lays bare its anxiety about losing the market. Deep down, the root cause is that it knows what it has done to Chinese companies would arouse retaliation if it happened to US companies.
Indeed, US media outlets may not even be able to tell which American move the rumored Chinese ban on iPhones is in retaliation for, because there are too many cases of the US suppressing Chinese companies and products in the name of "national security."
Why didn't US media outlets question their own government's behavior, which sabotaged the international trade order in the first place? How brazen are they to label China as the party that retaliated without mentioning what the US did first?
To name a few issues, the US did not just impose strict sanctions on Huawei but also asked its allies to do the same. It exerted pressure on TikTok to force a sale of shares to American companies with hooligan means. Washington has also used so-called human rights issues as an excuse to sanction Chinese manufacturing sector and Chinese companies.
If Washington is really worried about Chinese retaliation and US companies' interests, why not reflect on what the US has done to China and its companies? Putting aside political calculations, which are not in the interest of bilateral economic relations, and returning to the path of seeking the right solution, is the most effective therapy for Washington's paranoia and anxiety.
_______
Here's the top reader comment on this Tom's Hardware article on the new Apple iPhone 15:
www.yahoo.com/finance/news/just-tried-iphone-15-pro-04011...
I'm disappointed. So the only real change is the "action button" which many Samsungs have had for years, as well as Nokia. The other "new" thing is the USB-C, courtesy of European Union regulation, not Apple's. But I do want to be fair; you can only come up with so much every 12 months. I wish Apple would adopt a keyboard with numbers like Android did ages ago. And also, a pause button for the video camera, like Android did ages ago. Also, I miss the ability to shut off the phone with one button, but that's a personal one..
www.pcgamer.com/apples-new-iphone-chip-has-us-worried-abo...
Apple's new iPhone chip has us worried about TSMC's 3nm silicon and next-gen GPUs
Not much faster, no more efficient and barely any more transistors.
For starters, the A17 Pro's transistor count bump over its A16 Bionic predecessor is pretty modest. It clocks in at 19 billion where the A16 had 16 billion.
... the modest uplift in transistors means the CPU core count hasn't changed. The A17 Pro has two performance and four efficiency cores, just like the A16.
What's more, Apple is only claiming 10% performance uplift from the new CPU. That's super disappointing from an SoC on a brand new production node. What's more, that 10% increase includes both the benefits of the TSMC N3 silicon and what Apple says are revised cores with wider decode and execution units.
TSMC itself says the N3 silicon should be good for 10% more performance alone. So you really would think the new node plus revised cores would add up to more than 10% overall.
Then there's power efficiency. Normally you'd expect a new node to offer lower power consumption for the same performance.
Despite all that, Apple isn't making any claims for improved battery life over the outgoing iPhone 14 Pro. The battery life rating of the 15 Pro is exactly the same as before.
Taken altogether, it's hard to see where the benefits of the new 3nm silicon are kicking in. The new SoC doesn't get a big uptick in transistor count. It's not enabling a major performance bump. And it doesn't seem to be much more efficient.
www.businessinsider.com/us-navy-chinas-shipbuilding-capac...
China has the capacity to build PLA combat ships at 200 times the rate that the US can, per leaked US Navy intelligence
▫️ China's shipbuilding capacity has dwarfed US capabilities, per leaked US Navy intelligence.
▫️ A Navy spokesperson confirmed the leaked material's authenticity to Fox News Digital.
▫️ China has the world's largest navy and could have a fleet of 440 ships by 2030, per the Pentagon.
China's shipbuilding capacity is 232 times greater than the US, per leaked US Navy intelligence.
A leaked US Navy briefing slide with the information circulated online in July, per The War Zone, an online newsletter. The slide was titled "PLAN vs. USN Naval Force Laydown," and appeared to be marked "unclassified."
According to the data seen in the slide, China's shipyards have a capacity of over 23.2 million tons, more than 232 times greater than the US capacity of less than 100,000 tons.
The slide also appears to contrast the "battle force composition" of both navies, taking into account "combatant ships, submarines, mine warfare ships, major amphibious ships, and large combat support auxiliary ships."
A US Navy spokesperson told Fox News Digital in an article published on September 14 that the briefing slide is authentic.
The spokesperson said the slide "provides context and trends on China's shipbuilding capacity," but warned that the Navy did not intend for it to be read as a comprehensive "deep dive" into China's commercial shipbuilding industry.
"The slide was developed by the Office of Naval Intelligence from multiple public sources as part of an overall brief on strategic competition," the spokesperson said.
China has been hard at work at bolstering its naval capabilities. The country has the world's largest navy, with more than 355 vessels in its fleet, per a US Naval Institute report from 2021.