Apple
According to a Bloomberg article, Apple is preparing to launch its new line of MacBook Pro with more powerful Apple Silicon chips, as well as thinking about a new revamped Mac Pro. The MacBook Pros will be available from this summer in formats with 14 and 16-inch displays with MagSafe charging, a greater number of ports and, as has been said several times over the past few weeks, an HDMI video output and a slot will also return. for SD cards. This is definitely a step up from just the two Thunderbolt ports on current models.The notebooks will have two different processors, codenamed Jade C-Chop and Jade-C Die, each with 10 cores ( eight high-performance and two high-efficiency) but with two distinct variants for the GPU: 16 or 32 cores. A new MacMini with the same chip is also expected to arrive. It is not clear what they will be called, although many point to M2. These new SoCs should allow you to use up to 64GB of RAM and more Thunderbolt ports to connect to external devices.
Bloomberg says there are also two new Mac Pro chips in the works codenamed Jade 2C-Die , equipped with 20 cores (16 high performance and 4 high efficiency cores), and Jade 4C-Die with 40 cores (32 high performance and 8 high efficiency). As for the graphics component, however, we are talking about 64 or 128 core solutions. In this way, Apple would eliminate both Intel for the CPUs and AMD for the graphics cards, allowing for a smaller Mac Pro than in the past.
In addition to these pro-grade chips, Apple is planning an alleged heir to the M1 for a new version of the MacBook Air. The chip, codenamed Staten, will have the same number of processing cores, but the graphics part will be enhanced. During the announcement of the M1 chip for the MacBook Pro, MacBook Air and Mac Mini, Vice President John Ternus said the transition from Intel would take place over the next two years. If the timing is maintained, Intel could disappear from the Apple product line up as early as next year.
The new MacBook Air with M1 chip is available on Amazon with one-day shipping at a discounted price, don't miss it!
Apple asks court to rule iOS is not an ‘essential facility’
© Illustration by Alex Castro / The VergeAfter two and a half weeks in court, Apple is taking aim at one of the central elements of Epic’s antitrust case. In a filing Tuesday night, Apple asked the court to dismiss one of the 10 counts alleged in the initial complaint, arguing Epic had failed to establish any evidence for the charge that Apple had violated the essential facilities doctrine by failing to provide access to software distribution tools on iOS.
“At trial, Epic adduced no proof in support of this claim,” Apple’s filing reads. “On the contrary, Epic’s principal expert expressly disclaimed any opinion on essential facility, and (in response to a direct question from the Court) rejected the notion that iOS should be treated as a public utility. The Court should enter judgment for Apple on this claim.”
“It sounds to me like what Epic is saying is ‘We want Apple to allow us to deal on their platform,’” says the judge
Filed as a motion for partial findings, Apple is pushing to split off the essential facilities charge from the other nine charges made in Epic’s initial complaint. In essence, Apple believes it can win a quick victory on this specific point. That won’t settle the case entirely since the other nine charges still require a ruling, but it would be an unexpected and embarrassing loss for Epic.
Epic hasn’t talked about the essential facilities doctrine much in court, and Apple’s lawyers are responding in part to vocal skepticism from the court. On May 12th, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers specifically confronted Epic about the weakness of its evidence for the charge. “I’ve heard quite a bit of evidence throughout the trial regarding how big Apple is and how anticompetitive it is,” Gonzalez Rogers said. “It sounds to me like what Epic is saying is ‘We want Apple to allow us to deal on their platform. And there are only two of these platforms, and because there are only two platforms, all these competitors can’t succeed without access to these platforms.’”
Epic’s counsel clarified that it had “not abandoned that theory” — but it hasn’t substantially raised it in the days since.
“Apple controls iOS, which is essential to effective competition in the iOS App Distribution Market,” argues Epic
The essential facilities doctrine is a long-standing element of antitrust law that prevents dominant firms from using bottleneck services to box out competitors. In a foundational example from 1912, a railroad consortium prevented competitors from offering passage to and from St. Louis by denying access to switching yards around the city. The Supreme Court ruled that the arrangement was an illegal restraint of trade, establishing that companies must provide reasonable use of facilities that are essential for competitors.
In its complaint, Epic argues that app distribution on iOS is the same kind of bottleneck, charging that Apple has used its control over the iOS platform to prevent Epic and other competitors from offering competing app stores.
“Apple controls iOS, which is essential to effective competition in the iOS App Distribution Market,” the complaint argues. “Through its denial of its essential facility, Apple maintains its monopoly power in the iOS App Distribution Market.”
But Apple is now countering that Epic has reasonable access to iOS through the App Store itself — and that iOS customers are plainly not essential to the operation of its business since the company has been broadly successful without them.
“Epic’s own experience, as established by the trial evidence, confirms that there is nothing ‘essential’ about iOS,” Apple’s filing reads. “Fortnite was a success before it was made available on the App Store, and Fortnite’s revenues from iOS (prior to its removal) accounted for just 7 percent of its total revenue. And native apps are not the only way Epic can reach iOS customers—it also is free to distribute its products (including by selling V-Bucks) to iOS customers over the internet.”
Apple’s motion asks for a hearing on the issue on Monday, May 24th — or “as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard by the Court.”