By your own admission Apple does test the products before they reach customers. Your original post claimed that they didn't--obviously that post was wrong.
Maybe that's what they're doing when they disappear into the backroom for awhile.
You seem to have a solid handle on all the engineering & market challenges involved.
If 2 out of 3 Apple products failed then we probably would have heard about that by now.
They were dumbing down the explanation to make it understandable, there's obviously enough of an absorbtion difference to be detectable--that's all that matters.
Maybe stop investing so much of your self-worth into your choice of consumer electronics and then you won't feel the need to invent lame excuses (like bullshit marketing) for why someone else's choice is flawed.
I have also noticed a slight degradation in robustness on iPhones over the years--probably associated with the legalization of dynamic linking and background processes.
It's still pretty solid, though.
F@H is incredibly inefficient.
Huh, I wonder why not.
This is fun.
they're smart. And maybe you are consistently wrong (by your own admission) because you're stupid. That's the only explanation that fits all available evidence.
and it actually has a tremendous amount of historical evidence to back it up.
Who's going to be left to pay your basic income?
People said at the time that Apple would never sell 1M iPods, or iPhones, or iPads. They've sold hundreds of millions of these things. In each of these categories they sold more than 1000x more than what all previous manufacturers in those categories had every sold...combined.
No guarantee they'll do the same here--but everyone who has bet against them before has been catastrophically wrong.
presents no threat to Porsche. Absolutely insane.
I'd be curious to know how your code is going to affect cache coherency. Aren't cache invisible? Do you mean affect cache performance due to coherency issues?