Well...OK
I take your point. It's Apple doing what Apple does and doing it very well. I'm not convinced that writing off architectural changes to produce something that is very fast and very efficient is a complete goer though. Energy usage by a single consumer device may be inconsequential compared to energy use by a screamingly fast 4U beast but (guessing TBH, I've not checked the numbers) there are a lot more consumer devices than there are 4U beasts. Less energy used at the consumer end is less energy used overall and that's mostly a good thing.
The other bit that doesn't seem quite fair when writing this off is that it's a different approach that has been shown to give good results. That by itself is likely to cause some thinking outside of Cupertino about similar architectural changes; if only to get up the noses of Fanbois bleating on about their phone going 15 weeks between charges (not the greatest of reason for doing anything mind). Even if it is just phones and laptops at the minute there's little historical precedent within IT for anyone respecting artificial market segment boundaries when it comes to implementing good ideas. Aforementioned 4U beast only with 1/10th of the power consumption for the same performance would be a big saving for anyone's energy bill.
Yes, I know that it's more about shunting data around as quickly as possible rather than chewing through it at the moment. That's likely to change; storage, bandwidth and compute tend to jockey around playing pass the bottleneck so it'd be surprising it at some point in th next couple of decades people weren't complaining about not having enough fast enough cores to chew through the bits they're delivering. It'd be nice to have the compute side of things going screamingly fast when questum entangled transfer interfaces (that's made up BTW) are drowning them under a tsunami of data.
Rosie
Biting the hand that feeds IT
