Posts in Electronics (20 found)
Maurycy 4 days ago

Notes on optimizing battery life:

Ok, so you have something with a battery, and you want it to run for a long time. I'll be using the classic CR2023 non-rechargeable lithium "coin cell" as an example, but everything here applies to other types of battery. (except the exact voltage and capacity numbers) First off, it helps to measure power draw in current and charge in well, charge. It is tempting to convert everything into power and energy, but don't. Most circuit's power draw is much closer to constant current than constant power: a single clock cycle on a microcontroller involves charging or discharging some number of MOSFET gates. That requires some number of coulombs, not some number of joules. Linear regulators turn any circuit into a perfect current sink: no matter what potential is supplied, the device sees a constant voltage and will always draw the same current. Even if you don't use any, most chips will use a few to generate internal voltages. This is the "typical" current draw of an AVR32DD32 microcontroller over voltage from the datasheet : Black: 25 °C. Yellow: 125 °C. Also, battery capacity is nearly-universally specified as charge, usually in milliamp hours: a 100 mAh battery can support 1 mA of current for 100 hours before it's "dead". (more on what this means later) Non-ideal batteries : This battery has 3 volts stamped right on it... but that's kinda of a lie: Measuring the battery with a meter, the voltage is actually 3.3 volts. However, checking the datasheet, getting the manufacturer's claimed 235 mAh capacity requires operating down to 2 volts: From the datasheet (yes, these have one) With these "CR" Li/MnO 2 cells, the discharge curve is fairly flat: a device that only works down to 85% of nominal (2.6 volts) can still use a good 90% of the capacity. However, an "Alkaline" Zn/MnO 2 1.5 volt cell falls below 80% of nominal with a quarter of it's charge remaining. The manufacturer considers them dead at 0.8 volts — around half the original voltage. In a typical circuit, two batteries will be connected in series to produce a 3 V-ish supply. To get the advertised capacity, the device must be able to run down to 1.6 volts: the same as a (fresh) single cell! Think of supply voltage like a budget : If your battery will drop down to 2 volts and the MCU needs 1.8 V, any other components involved in supplying power must not drop more than 200 mV. It's not that the same MCU won't work on two AA batteries, but it won't be able to use the last 10% or so of capacity because it requires at least 1.8 / 2 = 0.9 volt per cell. Ok, so design for half the nominal supply voltage ? Batteries have non-trivial internal resistance, which causes a voltage drop when any current is drawn: a coin cell is usually around 10 ohms, while large AA cells sit around 0.1 ohms. To understand what causes this, let's look at how a coin cell works: On the negative electrode, a piece of lithium metal looses it's electron and dissolves into the electrolyte. Li → Li + + e - The resulting ions travel over to positive electrode and steal oxygen from the manganese dioxide: 2 MnO 2 + 2 Li + + e - → Li 2 O + Mn 2 O 3 This reaction releases a lot of energy because lithium is an alkali metal the manganese doesn't really care. That released energy is actually what powers the connected circuit. Crucially, the whole thing depends on positive lithium ions reaching and reacting with the positive electrode: moving against the electric field produced by the battery. The open circuit voltage, 3.3 volts, is enough to completly stop the reaction. This is why batteries only discharge once a circuit drains some of the accumulated electrons... but for the reaction to proceed at a reasonable rate, the voltage must drop quite a bit below the measured open-circuit voltage. If you've done any chemistry, it should come as no surprise that this is affected by temperature : As a rule-of-thumb, to operate down to -40 C, plan for ten times the internal resistance at room temp. If you see the voltage rail dropping by 50 mV at 20 C, make sure there's still enough voltage to go around if it drops 500 mV. Another thing that impacts reaction rate is the amount of reagents present , or in other words, the charge left in the battery: resistance increases as the battery is drained. As a test, I discharged an Alkaline battery at 400 mA: Orange: open circuit, blue: under load With a fresh cell, pulling almost half an amp only results in 100 mV of drop, or 0.25 ohms. By the time the battery is half empty, the resistance doubled to around half an ohm. At 60% discharge, the under-load voltage has dropped below the 0.8 V "dead" threshold. Reducing the voltage requirement won't help here: shortly afterwards, the resistance increased so much my test rig needed to supply power to force those 400 mA through. The smaller CR2032 cells start at around 10 ohms, and reach several hundred ohms by the time the open-circuit voltage falls to 2 V. It follows that any circuit that draws a lot of current can not use the full rated capacity. For pulsed loads, large capacitors can help, but they have their own problems which I'll discuss later. Also, batteries get worse as they age . Electrolytes can evaporate/leak and side-reactions can form layers that impede current. There's a good chance you've experienced this: a battery that tests fine on a meter but refuses to actually power anything. What's happened is that it developed a huge internal resistance (many killohms). In series with a high-impedance multimeter, it doesn't create any noticeable voltage drop. When connected to an actual device, the voltage drops to almost nothing. This is why you should be skeptical of any claims of 20 year, 30 year, 50 year battery life. Sure, that might be what you get by dividing nominal capacity by average current draw, but there's no telling how well the battery will work after all that time: I doubt even the manufacture really knows what happens past a decade or two. There's also self discharge , where leakage currents drain the battery, even when it's sitting on a shelf: This is usually given by the manufacturer as percent of capacity per year. Because the cell's voltage doesn't change all that much during discharge, — and the current is quite small — it's a fraction of the original capacity, not of what's remaining. This alone is enough to kill a AA battery in only 5 years depending on temperature (hotter is worse)... but again, this is not the only mechanism at play: Just because self-discharge might suggest a hundred year shelf-life, doesn't mean it will actually work in a hundred years. Another "fun" effect is voltage droop : Drawing current can deplete the chemicals around the electrode, causing a temporary increase in resistance. Applying a 400 mA current pulse to a half-empty ZnMnO 2 500 mAh cell caused the internal resistance to triple over the course 40 seconds: Yellow: cell voltage. Blue: Current Eventually, the battery does recover, but it took a good minute or so: Actually a trace of a different pulse, so the starting voltage is higher. What's interesting is that even though no current is being drawn, the battery circuit voltage is still not back to where it should be. This is where the "resistance" model starts to break down. It's more accurate to say that the pulse temporarily pushed the cell down it's discharge curve: increasing the resistance and decreasing the open circuit voltage. This gets worse when the battery is nearly empty: I applied a similar 10 second pulse to an 80% drained cell, it took around 5 minutes minutes to for it's open circuit voltage rise back above 0.8 volts. This effect highly variable depending on temperature (colder is worse) and state of charge, so it's good to include a wide voltage margin when designing a circuit that will draw sustained current. In short , internal resistance increases when... ... it's cold ... the battery is close to being empty ... the battery is used ... you do nothing at all Plan for a much worse voltage drop than what you see on your workbench: it's possible to loose as much as a volt per each mA drawn with a mostly empty coin cell on a cold night. With that in mind , it's time to look at those capacity numbers. As already discussed, aiming for longer than a decade or so is largely pointless because of battery aging. These CR2023 batters have quoted shelf life of 10 years, so it's going to be my target: From a CR2032 (~230 mAh), a device can draw an average of 2.6 uA if it runs down to 2 volts. From a AA (~3000 mAh) AA battery, a device can draw 34 uA if it runs down to 0.8 volts per cell. ... so we have a voltage budget and a target current. Keep in mind that internal resistance will cut into the voltage if when draw pulses in excess of a few microamps. Measurement techniques: These small currents present a problem: most multimeters don't really do well below a microamp. Benchtop models that can measure down to the nanoamps exist but are quite expensive. On paper, measuring current is easy: Insert a known resistor into the circuit and measure the voltage drop across it... except this either requires adding a large resistance or measuring a tiny voltage. A better way is to use an op-amp to hide the voltage drop from the device under test: The amplifier tries to keep its two inputs at the same voltage, which requires it to exactly match the device's current through the feedback resistor. This results in exactly the same voltage as if it was used as a shunt, except with zero burden voltage. Since most chips have two opamps, I use the other to create a VDD/2 supply rail which is used as the ground. This allows the chip to have access to voltages both above and below it. Most modern chips are "rail-to-rail", meaning they are designed to operate close to one of the supply rails... but this doesn't work too well: Consider what happens when the input current drops to zero. The amplifier has to pull the output (with a non-trivial amount of capacitance) down to zero. If the best the amplifier could do is connect the output to the negative rail, the voltage would exponentially decay, approaching zero but never reaching it. Would this be a huge problem? Probably not. Is it a good idea to make the chip's job as easy as possible? Yes. As a bonus, this allows the device to measure currents in both directions. Using the 100 pA/mV range, the circuit has an offset of ~10 pA, so it's not quite a picoammeter, but it's close. This makes it good for testing the leakage of MOSFETs, diodes, capacitors and the such. However, this design has one huge snag: It's zero burden voltage up to a fairly modest point. Once the output maxes out (100 nA - 100 uA depending on the range), the device will can see the full shunt resistance. This is a non-issue for testing component leakage, but it becomes a problem when measuring the current drawn by a microcontroller. For measuring sleep current, it's best to build a firmware image that never wakes up, and short the meter's input or connect a second power source during startup. Another option is to use a tiny feedback resistor: connecting a 1 kohm resistor between the input and output yields a 1 uA/mV range with a maximum of 1 mA. Once the microcontroller boots, the resistor can be removed to measure it's sleep current. (and if you are drawing more than this, you probably shouldn't) This is also a good trick to avoid crashing MCUs when switching ranges, which can cause a momentary disconnection depending on the geometry of your selector switch. Shielding is not optional : 100 picoamps is a kind of current that floats around on the air. It's best to put the whole setup inside a metal box connected to the meter's ground. Running coax to a scope or meter is fine because the wire's sheath is connected to the rest of the shield: this isn't RF stuff. If you don't have a box, wrapping the whole thing in aluminum foil works almost as well. (make sure it's not touching anything!) Also, it's a little silly to carefully screen out interference only to reintroduce it with a power supply, so it's best to run everything with batteries: Two 1.5 volt alkaline cells provides 3 volts and four is close enough to 5 volts. Also, be careful with what's touching the meter or part under test: a post-it note can easily conduct a whole nanoamp at 5 volts. Wood and fabric are similarly problematic. If in doubt as to if something is a problem, test it. When measuring capacitors, there's a really annoying property to be aware of : The dielectric material can slowly absorb or release charge over multiple hours. This effect is mostly known for recharging high-voltage capacitors after they've been removed from circuit — with unpleasant results — but it can also result in a deceptively high leakage current that goes away if the capacitor is used in a real circuit. Unless you have fancy polypropylene capacitors, you'll have to leave them in the test rig for several hours before taking a reading. Circuit testing : Of course, it's not enough to test individual components. The whole system has to work correctly with an imperfect power supply: A device running on a coin cell should be able to tolerate the full 1k with a two volt supply. ... also, it's a good idea to simulate a dead battery: an empty battery shouldn't result in hardware damage or data loss. Temperature can greatly effect leakage currents. If you expect the components to get up to 80 C, grab a heat gun and see how it performs at those temperatures. Practical advice: Before considering any components, does to circuit board itself consume any power? There's lots of people on forums saying you shouldn't use a soldermask, or that flux on the board causes leakage... For testing, I used a nothing special JLCPCB, green, FR4, 2-layer board. It had two quarter millimeter traces 30 mm long and separated by 2.7 mm. For the measurements, I used a 9 volt bias, which should represent worst case results: Clean : Testing the board as it came from the factory Humid : Breathing on it for a few seconds (99% RH, no visible condensation) Fingers : Touching it to get skin oils on the board Rosin : Spread some RMA flux and burned it with a soldering iron. Board condition and soldermask Current Soldermask, clean < 5 pA Soldermask, fingers < 5 pA Soldermask, humid < 5 pA Soldermask, rosin < 5 pA No soldermask, clean < 5 pA No soldermask, fingers 10 pA No soldermask, humid 30,000 pA No soldermask, rosin 20 pA The main troublemaker is humidity. If you are designing a circuit that needs to work outside, underwater or underground, it would be a good idea to include some desiccants: most plastic will allow water vapor to permeate inside. The soldermask prevented any significant leakage between traces, but problems could still happen between component pins. Conformal coatings will protect against short exposures, but will suffer from the permation problem. Soldering residue or skin oils aren't a problem unless you are doing picoamp metrology. Capacitors : Electrolytic or tantalum capacitors can leak multiple microamps at just a few volts: A jellybean 100 uF 16V electrolytic pulled 26 uA at nine volts, which is ten times the entire current budget for a CR2032! That cap alone could discharge the battery just a year or two. Ceramic capacitors a lot better: I grabbed a random 1 uF capacitor from my parts bin initially pulled several hundred nanoamps, but it dropped down to 920 pA @9 volts after two hours. Even a hundred of these would only draw 92 nA, which is only 3% of the budget. TLDR ; Don't use electrolytic or tantalums. Ceramic capacitors are fine in reasonable quantities and when run well below their rated voltage. Diodes are very commonly used for reverse polarity protection, but there are two possible configurations: A series diode uses a forward biased diode to prevent reverse current from getting to the device. A parallel diode adds a reverse biased diode to clamp the reverse voltage before the device is damaged. In the series configuration, voltage drop is very important : Real diodes are quite different from the idealized model. The voltage drop of a 1N4148 is only 0.6 V at 1 mA of draw and at 25 C. The relationship between current and voltage drop is roughly exponential: For a silicon PN diode, passing 10 times the current requires an extra 100 mV. This also works in the other direction: A circuit that only needs 10 uA (peak) will only see around 0.4 volts of drop across that diode. Temperature affects this: The threshold will rise ~2 mV for each degree the diode is cooled. At -40, expect 130 mV of extra voltage drop compared at room temperature. A Schottky diode has a much lower threshold voltage: 1 mA of current only needs 0.25 V. This can be a huge improvement to your voltage budget, although it's still a non-trivial amount. In the parallel configuration, reverse leakage matters . Because it's highly dependent on voltage, I measured a few diodes at 5 volts, which is closer to normal operating conditions: 2N4148 [PN] @5V: 2.3 nA BAT46 [Schottky] @5V: 2.4 uA In this test, the schottky doesn't do so well: It's three orders of magnitude worse than a similar PN diode. So, use a PN diode right? Well, if the battery can supply 50 mA into a short (fresh coin cell), there might be around a volt across the device. That can be enough to cause damage. So, what's a good reverse polarity protection circuit? An n-channel low-side switching version is also possible A MOSFET can act as a near ideal diode: If the gate (connected to the negative rail) is in fact, the lowest voltage, it's switched on. If the battery is inserted backwards, the gate now has the highest voltage in the circuit and the transistor stays off. However, it's still important to consult the datasheet or conduct experiments: the battery voltage might not be enough to fully turn on the FET, and even a properly "on" MOSFET still has a voltage drop. The final option is nothing: Battery clips that physically prevent a user from inserting a battery backward exist. These have no electrical penalties except for the contact resistance (which is negligible when compared to the battery's). Schottky leakage also poses a problem for dual power supply circuits. A microamp of backfeed into the backup battery can actually be enough to damage it. In these cases, you may be forced to use a PN diode or use a variation of the MOSFET trick: connect the gate to the primary supply rail. This will, at a minimum, perform as well as a silicon diode because of the transistor's intrinsic body diode. Once the power rail drops down to zero, the MOSFET's gate will be negative and it will turn on. However, it's performance won't be perfect if the main rail takes more than a millisecond or so to loose voltage. It's best to plan for a PN diode drop and consider any extra voltage as be a nice bonus. Computers : In theory, CMOS logic doesn't draw any power when sitting idle. In practice, it absolutely does. An 8-bit AVR128DD28 microcontroller draws 1.5 uA during sleep mode. Connecting a 32KHz crystal and using the integrated RTC to provide wake ups bring it up to 1.8 uA. This leaves just 700 uA of average current to work with. Ok, but at some point, the processor has to do something. Each clock cycle has a fixed cost: For the AVR, I measured it at ~0.28 nanoamp seconds, meaning that the battery has enough power for 3,000 billion cycles. Individual clock cycles on an AVR128DA28 running at 32 kHz. However, it's almost always a good idea to use a slow clock: The chip will draw an extra 277 uA of current draw per MHz. At the default four MHz clock speed, that's just over a milliamp. There's no guarantee the battery will be able to supply that kind of power. Decoupling caps aren't going to save you here: 1 mA is enough to drain a rather big 1 uF capacitor at 1 volt per millisecond. (remember, no electrolytics allowed.) Since the MCU has a minimum voltage of 1.8 volts, and the batteries can go as low as two, it's only safe to run like this for 200 microseconds / 800 cycles! However, running at 32 kHz only draws an average of 10 microamps. There are still current pulses from each clock cycle, but there are small enough to that they only drop a 1 uF capacitor by 0.27 millivolts. The processor does draw more a bit more quiescent current while running then in sleep mode. This is why some people suggest you should run at the maximum clock speed to save power... but while it is more efficient on paper, it simply doesn't work with real batteries. This also lets us calculate how long it can run for: 10 microamps is 14 times the remaining 700 nanoamp budget, so the processor can be running 7% of the time. Also, on this particular MCU, wakeups cause a big current pulse: Because of stray capacitance, applying power to the processor costs a whole 2.62 nanoamp seconds. With a 1 uF capacitor, this would drain it by 2.62 mV. However, with smaller caps like 6.8 nF, it could would discharge them a whole 385 mV. Stuff like this is why I'd recommend using around a microfarad: A decent 1 uF (MLCC) ceramic rated at a few times the supply voltage will leak almost nothing. To be fair, the datasheet does recommend this value, but plenty of people are in the habit of using smaller ones: When you have a 5 volt supply, loosing a third of a volt is not a big deal. Using a 3-but-actually-2 volt battery, it's enough to drop below the chip's minimum operating voltage. Some parts claim a much lower sleep current (in the nanoamps), but that's without retaining memory: Most applications can't use these modes. Consider a data-logger. Because flash consumes the same amount of power when writing a few bytes or a kilobyte, being able to buffer readings actually saves power. ... although there are some applications where a feature like this does make sense: This is something you have to consider before taking sleep current specs at face value. ... it's cold ... the battery is close to being empty ... the battery is used ... you do nothing at all Clean : Testing the board as it came from the factory Humid : Breathing on it for a few seconds (99% RH, no visible condensation) Fingers : Touching it to get skin oils on the board Rosin : Spread some RMA flux and burned it with a soldering iron. https://ww1.microchip.com/downloads/en/DeviceDoc/AVR128DA28-32-48-64-DataSheet-DS40002183B.pdf : The discussed microcontroller. https://data.energizer.com/pdfs/cr2032.pdf : Example battery datasheet https://lcamtuf.substack.com/p/real-mlccs-and-inductors-have-curves : Another footgun with capacitors

0 views
Jeff Geerling 1 weeks ago

News about Raspberry Pi 6 and Microcontroller Development

On Thursday, three of the lead Raspberry Pi engineers hosted an AMA on the r/engineering subreddit . One of the most interesting tidbits was on the Pi 6. Looking back at previous launches: Following that cycle, one would expect a Pi 6 3-4 years after the Pi 5, which would put it in 2026 or 2027. 2012: Raspberry Pi 2015: Raspberry Pi 2 (+3 years) 2016: Raspberry Pi 3 (+1 year) 2019: Raspberry Pi 4 (+3 years) 2023: Raspberry Pi 5 (+4 years)

0 views
Jeff Geerling 1 weeks ago

Wi-Wi Is Wireless Time Sync at 1 nanosecond

At NAB, I found a demo of Wi-Wi STAMP , a wireless time synchronization protocol that came out of Japan's NICT . Wi-Wi stands for Wireless 2Way interferometry, and it uses the 900 MHz band for picosecond-level time sync, and mm-level distance accuracy, in a tiny box, currently the size of a smartphone. The system is still in development, but existing prototypes have 20ps of phase synchronization jitter, and time synchronization down to 30ns. The next generation will have time down to 5ns in real-world use.

0 views
Manuel Moreale 1 weeks ago

A phone battery experiment

I’ve done all sorts of experiments over the years when it comes to my phone usage. From cutting down my screen time as low as possible, to not using the phone at all, to running it in black-and-white mode, and many others. But this morning I woke up, unplugged my phone from the charger, and I thought «I wonder if I can only charge my phone once a week» . That was a thought half-asleep me had without realizing that what I was actually thinking about was charging it twice a week, not once. So starting the week with a fully charged phone and only plugging it in once until the next Sunday night. I believe it can easily be done, and it might even be doable to use one full charge for the whole week, so not plugging my phone at all for the next seven days. Experiments are fun, and there's only one way to find out, so I’m going for it. I have a Pro Max with a healthy battery that is currently sitting at 100%, and I have put it in low power mode to give myself the best chance. We’ll see how far into the week I’ll make it before I have to charge it again. Thank you for keeping RSS alive. You're awesome. Email me :: Sign my guestbook :: Support for 1$/month :: See my generous supporters :: Subscribe to People and Blogs

0 views

Photo Journal - Day 5

Thought I would try something different for this entry! Each of these photos were taken with my Gameboy Camera attached to an Analogue Pocket (since it allows easy exporting). I've had this cartridge since I was a kid (I included 2 photos from back then for fun)! The following photos are from when I was a kid and have been sitting on the cartridge for 20+ years. ↑ This was one of the cats we had when I was a kid, his name was Benthem. He had massive cheeks! ↑ I imagine this was one of my friend's chickens that lived in the countryside.

0 views
Unsung 3 weeks ago

“Who thinks about a screwdriver?”

I found this 9-minute video from Rex Krueger about screwdriver handle design really interesting in the context of my post about Photoshop’s dialogs . = 2x) and (width >= 700px)" srcset="https://unsung.aresluna.org/_media/who-thinks-about-a-screwdriver/yt1.2096w.avif" type="image/avif"> = 3x) or (width >= 700px)" srcset="https://unsung.aresluna.org/_media/who-thinks-about-a-screwdriver/yt1.1600w.avif" type="image/avif"> Screwdriver handles evolved over the decades in response to user needs and usage patterns, with a few clever affordances: some for everyone, some for specific use cases that might not be obvious. I think by now all the basic onscreen UI elements – input fields, pop-up menus , checkboxes, buttons, top menus, sliders, and so on – have similar richness, as do all the core input devices like a keyboard, a mouse, a trackpad, or a touch screen. That doesn’t mean that everything is set in stone, that no changes are possible, and that stuff that fell out of favour can ever be taken away – after all, computer usage, input devices, and conventions are evolving much faster than screws at this point – but that one has to be aware of the history so that the changes are intentional, not accidental. A few select comments from under the video that I found interesting: The Craftsman handles are also different colors for Phillips and slotted screwdrivers. The fluted handle was patented. So anyone else wanting to make a screwdriver would have to pay the patent holder. So they tried alternatives to make more money. That is the real reason until the patent expired. Plus if they invented a “better” way and held the patent, others would have to pay THEM. The Swedish word for screwdriver is “skruvmejsel” with literally translates as “screw chisel.” #details #real world #youtube

0 views
Circus Scientist 3 weeks ago

Upgrading cheap LED Juggling Balls

Many years ago I bought 10 LED juggling balls from Oddballs in the UK. At the time, the special they had on was pretty good for bulk orders, but even today the balls are pretty cheap, if a bit basic (11 Pounds UK). The balls, being cheap, did not last. They have replacable batteries and the screw-in plug to close and switch on is a terrible design. Recently one of my upgraded K8 juggling balls broke somehow (a short from being dropped too much?). I fixed it up but I decided I needed some spares in case this happens again just before a show. Luckily I had some broken Oddballs balls lying around. I used the super bright LED’s from the ball and upgraded them with a 110mAh battery and Jack Switch for switching on/off and charging. Components: The post Upgrading cheap LED Juggling Balls appeared first on Circus Scientist . Oddballs Juggling Ball 110mAh LiPo battery Jack Switch

0 views
Stratechery 1 months ago

AI Hardware, Meta Display, Redefining VR and AR

I finally tried the Meta Ray-Ban Display, and it completely changed how I think about AR and VR.

0 views
Kev Quirk 1 months ago

Update on My Coffee Ridden Framework 13

A week or so ago, I talked about how I might have killed my Framework 13 by dumping a full mug of coffee over it while it was running. In that last post I explained how I'd stripped the laptop down and was waiting for some isopropyl alcohol (IPA) to be delivered so I could more thoroughly clean it. Well dear reader, the IPA turned up, I cleaned it as best I could, and left it for 24 hours to dry off. The next day I came back to it, re-assembled it and hit the power button with a fair amount of trepidation. I think it's dead, Jim. And I can't help thinking that turning the laptop on in haste, after the first clean is what completely screwed it. Oh well, we live and learn. In my desperation, I contacted Framework support and explained the whole saga to see if there was anything I was missing. There wasn't. They told me that the LED pattern I was seeing when powered on was indicative of a communication error with the board, so it's dead and needed to be replaced. Problem is, a new board is £700 (~$950) and I didn't fancy shelling out that much money out of my own pocket, so I contacted my home insurance provider to make a claim, and to be fair they were great. A case was logged and a couple of days later I had a payout that would cover the whole amount. The payout from the insurance was more than the repair cost, so I decided to upgrade from my current Ryzen 7 7840, to an AI 300 series board instead - nice little upgrade! The Framework site said it would be shipped in 5 days, and would probably be subject to delays of a further 7 days due to global freight disruptions. So I bought myself a ThinkPad T480 to see me through (which I'm typing this post on) as I couldn't bear to be on MacOS for another second. Framework overachieved again and the board is due for delivery tomorrow (Friday 24th April 2026). Once the board is delivered and my beloved Framework is (hopefully) working again, this nice little ThinkPad will go to my wife as an upgrade from here 2014(!) Gen 2 X1 Carbon. I've had a few people reach out telling me that they'd done something similar and their device's had survived. Unfortunately I wasn't as lucky, so what happened? I think it's because I didn't spill the coffee on my laptop, but next to it. Then as the puddle of coffee made its way over my desk and inevitably under my laptop, the spinning fan must have sucked it up and perfectly spread the coffee all over the main board. Thanks for that. Stupid fan. 🤣️ Had I spilled the coffee on my laptop, it would have had to make its way through the keyboard and chassis before it got to the board, by which point I would have had the laptop switched off and draining. I can't say for sure, but that's my theory. So anyway, wish my luck with the new board, folks! Thanks for reading this post via RSS. RSS is ace, and so are you. ❤️ You can reply to this post by email , or leave a comment .

0 views
Jim Nielsen 1 months ago

Hook It Up to the Machine

In the early 2000’s, my parents took us on a road trip to Glacier National Park in Montana. We made the journey in our new (used) family van: a green Dodge Caravan whose reputation was soon to become “a lemon”. I was a teenager and didn’t pay a lot of attention to the details of what was happening around me, but I do remember how the van kept overheating. It ran fine on the interstate, but anything under 40MPH had the car’s temperature gauge rising into unsafe zones. I remember stopping in some small town in Montana to get it checked out by a mechanic. He checked it out, took it for a test drive, etc., and told my Dad the reason the car was overheating was because the idling fan wasn’t turning on. At higher speeds, like on the interstate, that was fine because there was enough airflow to keep the engine cool but at lower speeds the car would overheat. The mechanic said he didn’t know why the fan wasn’t turning on. There was nothing wrong mechanically from what he could see. But he couldn't fix it. He told my Dad that this was one of those increasingly common “computerized” cars that you have to hook up to another computer to diagnose the source of the issue. And he didn’t have one of those computers. So we continued on our way. The rest of the trip required my Dad taking “the long way around”, like back roads where he could keep up his speed in order to avoid the car overheating. It was all very amusing to us as kids, almost thrilling because Dad had a legitimate excuse to drive fast (suffice it to say, Mom did not like this). Once the trip was over and we returned home, my Dad was able to get the car in to a dealer where they hooked up the car’s computer to another computer to diagnose and fix the issue. I don’t really remember the specifics, but the issue was seemingly some failed digital sensor that prevented the idling fan from turning on. Once the sensor was replaced, things worked again. Computers talking to computers. Growing up in an era that shifted so many things from analog to digital, mechanical to electronic , I’ve thought about this trip a lot. And I’m thinking about it again in this new era of building software with LLMs. I think about that mechanic. This guy who grew up around mechanical cars that could be physically inspected, diagnosed, and repaired. So much of his experience and knowledge unusable in the face of a computerized car. You can tell when a mechanical switch has failed with your eyes, but not a digital one. You need a computer to help you understand the computer. Will this be my future? If a codebase was made with the assistance of an LLM, will its complexity and bugs only be inspectable, understandable, diagnosable, and fixable with an LLM? “Hey, can you help me, there’s a problem with my codebase?” “Ok, I can confirm the issue, but I can’t fix it without hooking your codebase up to an LLM.” Reply via: Email · Mastodon · Bluesky

0 views
The Tymscar Blog 1 months ago

The Things I Wanted to Know Before Buying Apple's Studio Display XDR

I have owned somewhere near ten monitors at this point. CRTs, LCDs, a pretty disappointing 4K Samsung panel, then an ultrawide I genuinely loved. For the last few years though, I wanted one very specific thing: a retina-class 5K display at 120 Hz. 4K 120 Hz displays are everywhere. 5K 120 Hz displays, until very recently, basically did not exist at all. There are finally a couple of companies trying now. One of the more interesting ones is the ROG Strix 5K XG27JCG. It looks like a genuinely fantastic monitor, and it is much cheaper. Honestly, if the Studio Display XDR did not exist, I would buy that in a heartbeat.

0 views
Kev Quirk 1 months ago

I May Have Killed My Framework 13

I was in the office today, working away, and I often have my personal laptop, a Framework 13 next to me so I do things like check notes and emails, listen to music, etc. I reached over to grab something on the other side of my desk and managed to knock an entire fucking cup of coffee all over my beloved laptop. It immediately died, I assume because of some kind of safety net built into the device. I cleaned my desk up, and headed straight home to strip it down, clean it up, and dry it out. My first pass at cleaning removed a load of coffee with a combination of contact cleaner (which is a solvent suitable for electronics) and my little air compressor to blow it all out. I switched the laptop back on - it made a horrible noise, the screen flickered and it shut off. Next thing was to remove the mainboard to get deeper into the guts of the laptop. Shock horror, there was more coffee behind there too! So I repeated the cleaning process again, only this time a lot more thoroughly. Here's what it looks like now: I then found a few little spots of corrosion on the board. I'm really worried it was a result of the spillage on live components, and have therefore ruined the mainboard. So I took to DuckDuckGo to see what the best remedy is, and apparently it's isopropyl alcohol (IPA for short). I've ordered some for delivery tomorrow, and will continue cleaning it up to see if I can get this thing to live again. If not, I may have to buy a new mainboard (around £600). In the meantime I'm back on my M1 MacBook Air and I'm hating it. The operating system feels almost user hostile. I know it isn't, because I used to love it , but now I'm so used to using Linux again, this feels horrible. Hopefully I'll be able to get back to my Framework in the next couple days. Wish me luck! Thanks for reading this post via RSS. RSS is ace, and so are you. ❤️ You can reply to this post by email , or leave a comment .

0 views
マリウス 1 months ago

KTT x 80Retros GAME 1989 Orange

I picked up the KTT x 80Retros GAME 1989 Orange switches a while ago at Funkeys , a physical brick-and-mortar mechanical keyboard store in Yongsan-gu, Seoul , and it’s my first linear switch. Given its surprisingly cheap price I really didn’t expect much from it to be honest. KTT is a name people normally associate with budget options, like Peaches , Sea Salts , and Strawberries . It’s the kind of switches that show up in beginner build guides and they are generally good stuff, but not really the kind of thing that made me stop and think about what I was typing on. However, the GAME 1989 Orange changed that perception for me, and it did it in a way I genuinely didn’t see coming. But before we get into the switch itself, we need to talk about the vibe , because the vibe is half the story here. 80Retros is a relatively young brand out of China that debuted on ZFrontier around December 2023 with an interest check for their GAME 1989 cherry-profile PBT keycap set inspired by the original Game Boy . They describe themselves as lovers of all things vintage and retro, and unlike a lot of brands that slap “retro” on things as a marketing afterthought, they actually seem to mean it. What’s remarkable is how fast they’ve moved since then. Within a few years, they went from a single keycap IC to pushing out nearly a dozen different switches across two separate manufacturers ( KTT and HMX ), along with matching keycap sets in multiple colorways. The G.O.A.T. of switch reviews himself, ThereminGoat , covered this in detail in his HMX Volume 0-T review , and the GAME timeline is pretty interesting: The original HMX -manufactured GAME 1989 switches came first, followed by what he calls the “Film Trio” (the KD200 , FJ400 , and GAME 1989 Classic ), all packaged in these absolutely gorgeous film canister-inspired containers that look like oversized Kodak rolls. The film canister thing started as a nod to the KD200 and FJ400 being camera-brand-inspired, but the community loved the packaging so much that 80Retros seemingly just kept using it for everything. Even for switches that have nothing to do with photography. The KTT -manufactured GAME 1989 Orange and Red are the newer entries in this expanding catalogue, released as part of an “Expanded Film Series” in early 2025 alongside a Silent White variant and an HMX XMAS switch. So we’re looking at a brand that is absolutely not slowing down. On paper, PC top and PA66 bottom is a pretty classic material combo. KTT has used variations of this pairing for years. What makes this switch interesting is the KT2 stem made out of their proprietary UPE blend. UPE ( ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene ) is a material that’s been showing up more and more in the switch world, but it’s one of those things where the specific manufacturer’s blend matters enormously. Keygeek ’s U4 , for example, sounds glassy and solid. KTT ’s KT2 is more dry, a bit foamy, and (this is the part I didn’t expect) it brings an audible character that I can only describe as “marble-y” . It’s not soft, but it’s not hard either. It sits in this interesting middle ground. At 4mm travel with a pole bottom-out the switch is technically a long-pole linear, but the full travel distance means it doesn’t feel like one in the snappy, sharp way that most long-poles do. The pole bottom-out is there, but it’s mellowed out by the travel length and the stem material. More on that later. Stock smoothness is good, and I mean genuinely good. Probably not HMX -tier buttery, and probably not the absolute smoothest thing I’ve tried in the recent years, but there’s a quality to the travel that feels deliberate and controlled. The factory lube is present but light. A thin coating on the bottom housing railings, some on the stem legs and leaf, and the springs seem lightly done too. There is a texture to the keystroke and some people might call it scratch, but I’m not sure that would be fair, though it’s not entirely wrong either. UPE blends can be unpredictable when paired with other housing materials. Sometimes you get something silky, sometimes you get audible friction. The KT2 blend with this PC/PA66 housing produces a slight tactile grain in the travel that I genuinely enjoy. It’s subtle enough that you won’t notice it during normal typing speed, but if you slow-press a single key at ear level, it’s there. Spring-wise, 40g actuation bottoming out at around 50g is on the lighter side, especially for me and my usual Frankenswitches . I wouldn’t call it featherweight, but if you tend to bottom out hard, you’ll definitely hit the end of the stroke with minimal effort. The springs are clean, without noticeable ping in my set. The factory lube on the springs seems to do its job. One thing to note is that there’s reportedly about a 3g variance between individual switches. I couldn’t verify that precisely, but I did notice the occasional key that felt marginally different. Not a dealbreaker for me, but if you’re the kind of person who weighs every spring in a batch, keep it in mind. As for wobble, it is present. There’s some slight vertical (north-south) wobble and maybe a touch of east-west if you go looking for it. This seems to be a known trade-off with KTT ’s newer molds. Their older switches like the Hyacinths seemingly had incredibly tight tolerances, but those molds are from a different era. KTT has been retooling to accommodate new materials like their KT2 and KT3 blends, and the fit isn’t quite as snug as the old stuff. As for films, they probably do help to tighten up the housings and I’ve read that filming the switches apparently also compresses the sound profile slightly. Personally, the wobble doesn’t bother me too much. The sound profile is where the GAME 1989 Orange gets genuinely interesting, because the sound profile is busy , and I mean that in a good way. The bottom-out is lower-pitched than you’d typically expect from a PC -topped switch. The PA66 bottom housing and the KT2 stem material seemingly pull the tone down into a territory that’s thocky without being mushy. There’s a definite pop to the keystroke, and the bottom-out has weight to it. The top-out (the return stroke) is a touch brighter, creating this slight tonal contrast between the downstroke and upstroke that gives the switch a lot of auditory dimension. There’s a lot happening acoustically at any given keystroke and none of it sounds muddied or confused. The “marble-y” quality I mentioned earlier really comes through in the sound. It’s not a wet, lubed sound, but a relatively dry and more textured one, with a character that feels… natural, in lack of better words. The slight scratch in the travel actually adds to the sound profile rather than detracting from it. The initial contact, the pole hitting bottom, the spring compression, the return remains distinct of each other and layered. Volume-wise, it’s moderate. Definitely not silent, but also not exactly loud. Slightly quieter than your average long-pole, which makes sense given the full 4mm travel and the way the KT2 material absorbs some of the impact energy. I haven’t yet tested it on any of my aluminium builds , but at least on the few keyboards Funkeys had these switches on, as well as on my Kunai , I find that the sound profile works beautifully. Having that said, these switches are definitely less ideal for quiet/public environments, like open space offices and cafes. The switches come factory lubed and they work just fine stock. I’d personally resist the urge to lube them further unless you specifically want to kill the audible scratch, which I think is part of the charm. If you do lube, know that you’re trading character for smoothness, and these are already reasonably smooth to begin with. They accept films, and filming them does seem to tighten the sound slightly with less resonance in the housing, a more compressed signature. Depending on your build and plate material, that might be exactly what you want or exactly what you don’t. Try a few with and without before committing. As for the packaging, if you buy the 35-switch sets, they come in those aforementioned film canister containers. It’s genuinely lovely and a nice touch that makes the whole experience feel considered. Not something I’d pay extra for, but it’s a detail that matters for the overall product identity. One thing to note is that the canisters open very easily. I wouldn’t walk around holding them upside down unless I’d want to play find 35 switches hidden underneath the furniture . The KTT x 80Retros GAME 1989 Orange surprised me. It’s a switch that trades the ultra-polished, frictionless perfection for something with a dry, textured, slightly scratchy keystroke that somehow comes together into a sound profile that’s warm, full, and more complex than it has any right to be at this price point. It’s not perfect. The wobble is there, and the housing tolerances aren’t as tight as the best in the business. It doesn’t feel like every other linear on the market, at least not like the ones I had the chance to try over the past years. It has character, which, in a hobby that’s increasingly crowded with technically excellent but personality-free switches, has its charm. If you want the smoothest linear available, look elsewhere. If you want something that sounds interesting, feels engaging, and comes wrapped an homage to a long gone era give the 1989 Orange a shot. I’m genuinely glad I did. Disclaimer: I’m not a switch scientist. I don’t own a force curve rig, I can’t tell you the exact durometer of the KT2 blend, and my ears are probably not calibrated to the standards of someone like ThereminGoat . This review is based on my personal experience typing on these switches across a few different boards and ultimately actively using them on my primary keyboard . Your mileage may vary based on your plate material, case, keycaps, and other factors. Take everything here as one person’s experience and use it as a starting point for your own.

0 views
Kev Quirk 1 months ago

Why Have a Dedicated Music Device?

In the last year or so I've read about many people moving from streaming services, like Apple Music and Spotify, to their own music library. To support these local libraries, many seem to be getting themselves a music player, such as the Fiio Echo Mini . While moving to a local library is something that I've thought about many times 1 , I don't understand why people are buying these little music players. The big selling points generally seem to be: With the exception of the 3rd point, pretty much every smartphone on the market will do all of this. And let's be honest, #3 doesn't really matter as most people use Bluetooth buds these days. Yes, I know some people still use old school wired earphones. I don't need an email from you. So if the device that's already in your pocket will do everything these little music players will already do, why get an extra device to lug around everywhere? I want to stress, these look really cool, and if that's why you want one, that's totally fine. But anecdotally, that's not what I'm seeing. Can someone enlighten me? I see the advantages of owning your own music library, but I don't get why people want to carry another device everywhere. I've decided to stick with streaming, but that's a post for another day.  ↩ Thanks for reading this post via RSS. RSS is ace, and so are you. ❤️ You can reply to this post by email , or leave a comment . Bluetooth connectivity so you can use with buds, or in your car. Plenty of local storage. Audio jack. Easy to drag and drop music. I've decided to stick with streaming, but that's a post for another day.  ↩

0 views
Jeff Geerling 1 months ago

DRAM pricing is killing the hobbyist SBC market

Today Raspberry Pi announced more price increases for all Pis with LPDDR4 RAM , alongside a 'right-sized' 3GB RAM Pi 4 for $83.75. The price increases bring the 16GB Pi 5 up to $299.99 . Despite today's date, this is not a joke. I published a video going over the state of the hobbyist 'high end SBC' market (4/8/16 GB models in the current generation), which I'll embed below: But if you'd like the tl;dr :

0 views
Andy Bell 1 months ago

I want an alarm clock

Nothing fancy is needed here and certainly nothing “smart”, but my one actual use for an Apple Watch — as a chill alarm clock — is silly really. I’m so fed up of my Apple Watch, so has anyone got a recommendation for an alarm clock that: Is chill with the sounds. I don’t need to be yelled awake thanks. Allows me to set a different time alarm — or no alarm — for different days Is not smart and never connects to the internet Doesn’t tick

15 views
Stratechery 2 months ago

Apple’s 50 Years of Integration

Listen to this post : There is a weird phenomenon as a sports fan where the athletes on the field or court are older than you…and then they’re your age…and then they’re all younger than you; for me the last athlete I could look up to, at least in terms of age, was Tom Brady. Tech companies are similar, in a way. I like to write about tech history, and the importance of origin stories for understanding company cultures, and I’m fortunate enough to have witnessed most of those origins. However, there are still some companies that pre-date me — the Tom Brady’s of the industry, if you will — and one of those is Apple, which turns 50 tomorrow. My first computer was a hand-me-down IBM-compatible 286 — I don’t even remember the brand — but I mostly cut my teeth building my own computers with overclocked Celeron chips in college, using parts procured by leveraging unsustainable dot-com era customer acquisition strategies (a unique email address meant a PayPal account with a free $25 and a single-use credit card with another free $25 used for a Value America account with a $50 off coupon). Needless to say I not only witnessed many of these companies’ births, but also their deaths! There were Apple II’s at my elementary school, where I would type out programs in BASIC, but my first serious interaction with the company’s products was at the college newspaper doing layout in QuarkXPress; after I graduated I was smitten by the iMac G4 and its adjustable arm, and the GarageBand addition to the iLife suite; I ended up buying an iBook, and here I am, a quarter of a century later, typing this Article on a MacBook Pro. In my history is much of Apple’s history. I missed the very early years, when the Apple I was a mere circuit board created by Steve Wozniak; Steve Jobs bought the parts for the initial batch on net-30 terms and paid them off by receiving cash-on-delivery from a computer shop in Mountain View; it was the Apple II, released in 1977, that made the company, and that was my first encounter with Apple. The Mac came out in 1984, and found its niche in desktop publishing; that’s how I came back to Apple in college. Apple, however, was struggling in the face of more capable modular Windows PCs, which I was happily building in the meantime. It was OS X that changed Apple’s fortunes with nerds , and Jony Ive’s stunning designs that changed the value proposition for everyone else; iLife, meanwhile, made the Mac useful from day one. It was the combination of all three that made me a customer, and as the Internet destroyed lock-in, it was the fit and finish of the operating system and Apple’s independent developer ecosystem that made my two years at Microsoft with Windows a drag; then, in 2020, Apple’s differentiation came full circle : Macs were the fastest personal computers — particularly laptops — in the world. There were, of course, other parts of the Apple story, including the iPod and, most importantly, the iPhone. Those were the products that made Apple the most valuable company in the world for years (today Apple is surpassed only by Nvidia). These products, however, might have been in a form that addressed a far larger market, but were still very much Apple, a company that, all these years later, faces no competition when it comes to integrating hardware and software. What do I mean by “no competition”? Well, consider Apple’s nominal competitors through the years: IBM: This is, perhaps, the most iconic photo from early Apple: The Apple I launched in a world where computing was primarily for the enterprise, and primarily happened on IBM’s mainframes. Increased accessibility of processors and memory, however, made hobbyist computers possible, which is exactly what the Apple I was. It was the Apple II, however, that made IBM pay attention; I explained in 2013’s The Truth About Windows Versus the Mac : In the late 1970s and very early 1980s, a new breed of personal computers were appearing on the scene, including the Commodore, MITS Altair, Apple II, and more. Some employees were bringing them into the workplace, which major corporations found unacceptable, so IT departments asked IBM for something similar. After all, “No one ever got fired…” IBM spun up a separate team in Florida to put together something they could sell IT departments. Pressed for time, the Florida team put together a minicomputer using mostly off-the-shelf components; IBM’s RISC processors and the OS they had under development were technically superior, but Intel had a CISC processor for sale immediately, and a new company called Microsoft said their OS — DOS — could be ready in six months. For the sake of expediency, IBM decided to go with Intel and Microsoft. IBM was, in the end, just a hardware maker; they couldn’t be bothered to make the software. Microsoft: Software fell to Microsoft. Continuing from that 2013 Article: The rest, as they say, is history. The demand from corporations for IBM PCs was overwhelming, and DOS — and applications written for it — became entrenched. By the time the Mac appeared in 1984, the die had long since been cast. Ultimately, it would take Microsoft a decade to approach the Mac’s ease-of-use, but Windows’ DOS underpinnings and associated application library meant the Microsoft position was secure regardless. For decades after the fact, conventional wisdom was that Microsoft’s modular approach — the one that let me build my own computers — was unquestionably superior to Apple’s integration of hardware and software. In fact, it was Apple’s integration that kept the company afloat: all of those Macs used for desktop publishing were expensive, and gave Apple enough revenue to (barely) stay in business; the company’s brief foray into licensing Macintosh OS was a major contributor to the company nearly going bankrupt. Or, to put it another way, Apple only briefly competed with Microsoft, and it nearly killed them. Consumer Electronics Companies: It’s difficult to choose a company to represent the iPod era, because Apple didn’t really face any meaningful competition. There was Sony and the Discman, and Diamond and Creative with some of the first MP3 players, but the reality is that no one had the combination of hardware and software that made the iPod special; in this case, the software was iTunes, and putting iTunes on Windows is what propelled Apple far beyond the Macintosh, and laid the groundwork for what came next. RIM, Palm, and Nokia: It was early smartphone makers who were, in the framing I am taking in this Article, the only true competition Apple has ever had. All three of these companies integrated hardware and software, which makes sense given that the smartphone category was so nascent — that’s when integration is particularly important. The iPhone, however, was different in one important regard: RIM, Palm (which also sold phones with Microsoft’s Windows Mobile), and Nokia first and foremost made phones ; the iPhone was a full-blown computer, built on a foundation of OS X. That, combined with the iPhone’s innovative multi-touch input method, resulted in a vastly more capable and compelling device that wiped out all three companies. Android: Android is, in many respects, the Windows to Apple’s iOS — which was why many commentators predicted that Apple was doomed . One critical difference, however, is in the Article I excerpted above: whereas DOS came before the Mac, the iPhone came before Android. That meant that Apple had a critical mass of users and developers first, in contrast to the 1980s. Another difference is that the iPhone sold to end users, not IT departments, who actually cared about the look and feel of the device they were spending their money on. A third difference is that Apple had (and continues to have) the performance advantage, thanks to their investment in their own silicon, a stark difference from the dead end the company found itself in with the Mac. Android is, of course, a big success, with more unit market share worldwide (although the iPhone has majority share in the U.S.). There is a place for modularity, and companies like Samsung have done well to build high-end Android-powered devices, with a host of Chinese companies in particular filling in the lower-end. And, it should be noted, that Google makes its own Pixel phones as well; that is true competition, albeit one that barely registers given Google’s commitment to the entire Android ecosystem (so few, if any Pixel-exclusive features, at least not for long), and Apple’s grip on the high-end of the market. Perhaps Apple’s most interesting new product is one that takes the company full circle. The MacBook Neo is the cheapest Mac laptop ever, and has the company poised for major gains in the low-end of the market. Notably, in defiance of the assumption that modular offerings take share by being cheaper and “good enough”, Apple, by making everything from operating system to device to chip, is selling a computer that is both higher quality and has higher performance with lower component costs than the alternatives in its class; and, now that there is no more software lock-in — the Neo runs a browser and an AI chat client just like Windows machines do — Apple is poised to make major gains in its oldest market. More generally, Apple’s market share in all of its markets, including the phone, continues to increase over time, not decrease. This is happening despite the fact that Apple is not investing at a meaningful level — at least compared to its Big Tech peers — in AI server capacity, and has yet to ship the new AI-empowered Siri it promised nearly two years ago . The reason it doesn’t matter is that no matter how powerful AI becomes, you still need to access it with a device, and Apple, thanks to its integration of hardware and software, makes the best devices. Now, according to Bloomberg , Apple is planning to leverage its position with end users to give access to multiple AI providers: Apple Inc. plans to open Siri to outside artificial intelligence assistants, a major move aimed at bolstering the iPhone as an AI platform. The company is preparing to make the change as part of a Siri overhaul in its upcoming iOS 27 operating system update, according to people with knowledge of the matter. The assistant can already tap into ChatGPT through a partnership with OpenAI, but Apple will now allow competing services to do the same… The company is developing new tools to allow AI chatbot apps installed via the App Store to integrate with the Siri assistant, said the people, who asked not to be identified because the plans haven’t been announced. The chatbots will also work with an upcoming Siri app and other features in the Apple Intelligence platform. That means, for instance, if users have Alphabet Inc.’s Google Gemini or Anthropic PBC’s Claude installed, they’d be able to send queries to those services from within the Siri voice assistant, just like they have been able to with ChatGPT since Apple Intelligence launched in 2024. The approach also should allow Apple to generate more money from third-party AI subscriptions through the App Store. This isn’t quite Safari search, wherein Apple earns a revenue share from Google for searches made through the iPhone’s built-in browser, but given that AI assistants are largely monetized through subscriptions, it’s not far off: Apple will happily sell subscriptions through the App Store and take 30% of the price for the first year, and 15% after that. Owning the device means Apple gets to aggregate AI (and the company is already making $1 billion a year from chatbot subscriptions ). This is exactly what I expected after Apple announced that initial partnership with OpenAI; from a 2024 Update Apple, probably more than any other company, deeply understands its position in the value chains in which it operates, and brings that position to bear to get other companies to serve its interests on its terms; we see it with developers, we see it with carriers, we see it with music labels, and now I think we see it with AI. Apple — assuming it delivers on what it showed with Apple Intelligence — is promising to deliver features only it can deliver, and in the process lock in its ability to compel partners to invest heavily in features it has no interest in developing but wants to make available to Apple’s users on Apple’s terms. The company that owns the point of integration in the value chain never wants to have an exclusive supplier; it wants to commoditize its complements, which means creating a modular interface for multiple companies to compete on the integrator’s terms, which is exactly what these AI extensions for App Store apps sound like. Of course there still is the matter of getting Apple Intelligence to work; this upcoming feature is separate from Apple’s deal with Gemini for foundation models for Siri. I explained the distinction in this Update , and concluded: The big problem with this vision is that it assumed that Apple Intelligence would be competent, and it simply wasn’t; just as the iPhone search deal wouldn’t be worth much if the iPhone sucked, Siri chatbot integration isn’t worth much if Siri sucks. Now, however, Google is selling the underlying model to make Siri good, and their biggest hope is that they can pay Apple all of their money back — and more! — to have a money-making Gemini sit on top. Apple will let the users decide who is on top; I’m sure the company would also be amenable to be paid to be the default! Many people are taking a victory lap about Apple’s decision to not compete in AI models, claiming that the company is winning by not trying; I previously linked to Horace Dediu’s The most brilliant move in corporate history? , but it’s a good articulation of the argument: The hyperscalers are now spending 94% of their operating cash flows on AI infrastructure. Amazon is projected to go negative free cash flow this year with as much as $28 billion in the red. Alphabet’s free cash flow is expected to collapse 90% from $73 billion to $8 billion. These companies used to be the greatest cash machines ever built. Now they’re borrowing money to keep the data center lights on… And what are they getting for that $650 billion? AI services generate roughly $35 billion in total revenue or 5% of what’s being spent on infrastructure. There are dreams of more of course, but the business models of AI have yet to resonate, especially for consumers… Apple didn’t miss the AI revolution. It just bet that the winners won’t be the ones who build the infrastructure. They’ll be the ones who own the customer and no one else on Earth owns the best customers. Apple owns the best customers because it makes the best devices, thanks to its integration of hardware and software. And, as I recounted above, it is somehow, fifty years on, the only company of its kind. There is, however, an emerging threat that Apple is seeking to head off. Again from Bloomberg : Apple Inc. awarded rare bonuses to iPhone hardware designers this week, aiming to stem a wave of departures to AI startups like OpenAI that are building their own devices. The company granted out-of-cycle bonuses worth several hundred thousand dollars to many members of its iPhone Product Design team, according to people with knowledge of the matter. Apple’s leadership has grown increasingly concerned about the number of engineers being poached by potential rivals. OpenAI, which has tapped former Apple design chief Jony Ive to help design a new generation of AI-centric products, has emerged as a particular threat…OpenAI’s hardware division is run in part by Apple veteran Tang Tan. He used to oversee the iPhone product design team that’s receiving the bonuses. Tan’s group at OpenAI has hired several dozen Apple engineers, and not just ones who worked on the iPhone. The startup has lured employees who helped develop the iPad, Apple Watch and Vision Pro. OpenAI isn’t just hiring designers; the company is also building out operations capabilities to be able to actually make the upcoming Ive-designed device at scale (presumably in China). Still, many are wondering about the status of OpenAI’s hardware device given the news about Sora; from the Wall Street Journal : OpenAI is planning to pull the plug on its Sora video platform, a product it released to great fanfare last year that has since fallen from public view. The move is one of a number of steps OpenAI is taking to refocus on business and coding functions ahead of a potential initial public offering as soon as the fourth quarter of this year. CEO Sam Altman announced the changes to staff on Tuesday, writing that the company would wind down products that use its video models. In addition to the consumer app, OpenAI is also discontinuing a version of Sora for developers and won’t support video functionality inside ChatGPT, either. OpenAI is in the middle of a strategy shift to redirect the company’s computing resources and top talent toward so-called productivity tools that can be used by both enterprises and individual users. Last week, OpenAI announced that it was combining its ChatGPT desktop app, coding tool Codex and browser into one “superapp.” The company expects the consolidated product to align its employees around a single vision. In fact, cutting Sora but keeping the hardware initiative fits this strategy shift: Sora, along with the also indefinitely delayed adult-mode , were products that drive more attention, which lends itself to the more traditional consumer business model of advertising. Productivity, on the other hand, is a much better fit for enterprise, where Anthropic is making major gains. The problem, however, is that most consumers aren’t willing to pay for software; what they are willing to pay for are devices . This was the secret of the iPhone; from 2016’s Everything as a Service : Apple has arguably perfected the manufacturing model: most of the company’s corporate employees are employed in California in the design and marketing of iconic devices that are created in Chinese factories built and run to Apple’s exacting standards (including a substantial number of employees on site), and then transported all over the world to consumers eager for best-in-class smartphones, tablets, computers, and smartwatches. What makes this model so effective — and so profitable — is that Apple has differentiated its otherwise commoditizable hardware with software. Software is a completely new type of good in that it is both infinitely differentiable yet infinitely copyable; this means that any piece of software is both completely unique yet has unlimited supply, leading to a theoretical price of $0. However, by combining the differentiable qualities of software with hardware that requires real assets and commodities to manufacture, Apple is able to charge an incredible premium for its products. OpenAI is approaching this space from the opposite direction: it has a massive consumer user base for ChatGPT, and an impressively large number of subscribers; it is also adding advertising. However, to truly monetize consumers the most attractive business model is the Apple model: integrated hardware and software. The truth is that Apple’s lack of investment in AI was always going to be a short to medium-term win: the company doesn’t have to spend on infrastructure, and everyone still needs a device. The real threat is in the long-term: what happens if AI becomes so good that it obviates traditional user interfaces? Or, to put it another way, what if the point of integration that is most compelling is not a traditional operating system and hardware device, but rather AI and a dedicated device? If this threat materializes, it won’t be with OpenAI’s initial offering; the smartphone is the ultimate form factor, and does so many jobs that depend on its flexibility and capability and 3rd-party ecosystem that no new entrant could hope to compete (indeed, Google and Android is arguably a bigger threat for this reason). However, just how capable might AI be not just next year, but in five years, or ten years? If ever a better interaction paradigm were to succeed the smartphone surely it will be rooted in AI — and Apple, by giving up now, won’t be in the game. This absolutely is not a prediction. Indeed, if I had to bet, I would bet on Apple keeping its place: It’s also worth noting that OpenAI has, in its relatively short life, managed to frame itself as a competitor to basically everyone in tech, from Google to Meta to Microsoft, only to find itself forced to pivot in the face of Anthropic and its focused approach on coding and productivity in the enterprise. The audacity of taking on everyone is impressive; the effectiveness of fighting everyone for everything may be less so. Still, there is an angle here for OpenAI, and a point of vulnerability for Apple. The company made it fifty years with no one truly competing with its integrated business model; the fate of its next fifty years may rest on the question of just how compelling AI ends up being — and if OpenAI can out-Apple the original. First, there is the likelihood that the smartphone, thanks to its screen, connectivity, and battery life, is in fact the best device for AI, and that furthermore, AI will be just one capability alongside everything a smartphone already does. Second, to the extent that AI inference moves to the edge, Apple has a big advantage thanks to its industry-leading chips. Third, Apple always has the option of opening up its devices to allow for much deeper integration with 3rd-party AI providers other than OpenAI, in order to effectively fight off a potential threat.

0 views
HeyDingus 2 months ago

I’m returning my Studio Display XDR and buying another one

Sooo… I did a thing. I couldn’t help but be slightly dissatisfied by the clarity of my Studio Display XDR ’ s nano-texture display. It just made everything look a little less than Retina-quality. And for this price, I don’t want to have lingering regrets each time I use it. So, I ordered a second non-nano-texture version, banking on Apple’s generous return policy . It came in today. I set it up about 30 minutes ago. I put the two displays side by side and… it’s no question. The nano-texture is going back. Showing the same content on each display, at the same brightness level, I can absolutely see the fuzziness introduced by the “ matte” display. It’s not that nano-texture is all bad. I love how it looks when the display is dark — there are zero reflections. 1 But the point is to enjoy it while the display is on . Without nano-texture, everything is as crisp as I had hoped. I tend to lean toward the display when I’m concentrating, and even close up, the display is razor sharp. I technically have until April 9th to send back the nano-texture XDR , but, honestly, I think I’m going to package it up tonight. Well… maybe tomorrow. I might as well enjoy having 10k pixels of display at my disposal while I can. If I hold onto the original display until the last day that I can send it back, I will have had it for 24 days. That’s a full 10 extra days beyond the stated 14-day return period. It’s possible that I could have squeezed in even a few more days by initiating the return today, the 14th day after it was delivered, instead of the 11th. With that in mind, one could get nearly a month of use for testing and comparison of Apple’s products, with the ability to return it (free shipping both ways) for a full refund. That’s serious commitment to customer satisfaction, and one area where Apple’s standards haven’t slipped. To boot, by paying with Apple Card’s Monthly Installments (which allow you to pay for an item over 12 months with 0% interest), I’ve only been charged $287.92 for the nano-texture display, and $263.92 for the regular one. I think that was just the taxes for each one. To be sure, it’s a privileged position I’m in to be able to do these shenanigans, but there’s a lot to be said for how easy Apple has made it to purchase even it’s most expensive products with very little risk. If I were in an environment with light sources behind me, my decision might be very different. I think there’s definitely a place for this non-reflective display — it’s just not in my home office. ↩︎ HeyDingus is a blog by Jarrod Blundy about technology, the great outdoors, and other musings. If you like what you see — the blog posts , shortcuts , wallpapers , scripts , or anything — please consider leaving a tip , checking out my store , or just sharing my work. Your support is much appreciated! I’m always happy to hear from you on social , or by good ol' email . If I were in an environment with light sources behind me, my decision might be very different. I think there’s definitely a place for this non-reflective display — it’s just not in my home office. ↩︎

0 views