"There's been major impact to some things" -> so bad things have happened

"but for the most part the economy has hummed along without a blip." -> so despite bad things happening, just plug your ears and sing loudly?

As for prices in Walmart, they HAVE gone up. Several companies have had press releases stating they need to increase prices because of tariffs:

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/05/31/trump-tariffs-here-are-the-r...

"Retailers like Costco and Best Buy said they have already raised some prices, while Walmart, Target and Macy's plan to follow suit"

I'll be the first to say that given the circumstances our underlying economy and people have held up better than complete collapse. But you can't pretend this is not happening.

But would you read their blog post on laundry tips?

No - it's just as easy for you to send out your own laundry.

Nvidia's willingness to pay exorbitant prices for early 2nm wafers subsidizes the R&D and the brutal yield-learning curve for the entire node. But you can't run a sustainable gigafab solely on GPUs...the defect density math is too punishing. You need a high-volume, smaller-die customer (Apple) to come in 18 months later, soak up the remaining 90% of capacity and amortize that depreciation schedule over a decade.

Apple OTOH operates at consumer electronics price points. They need mature yields (>90%) to make the unit economics of an iPhone work. There's also the binning factor I am curious about. Nvidia can disable 10% of the cores on a defective GPU and sell it as a lower SKU. Does Apple have that same flexibility with a mobile SoC where the thermal or power envelope is so tightly coupled to the battery size?

Sauce on the number?

iPhones are luxury goods with margins nowhere near typical for consumer electronics. Apple can easily stomach some short term price hikes / yield drops.

    > They need mature yields (>90%) to make the unit economics of an iPhone work.

For example the regular M4 can have 4 P-cores / 6 E-cores / 10 GPU cores, or 3/6/10 cores, or 4/4/8 cores, depending on the device.

They even do it on the smaller A-series chips - the A15 could be 2/4/5, 2/4/4, or 2/3/5.

The Pro and Max chips are different dies, and the Ultra currently isn't even the same generation as the Max. And the iPads have never used any of those larger dies.

> NVIDIAs flexibility came from using some of those binned dies for GeForce cards

NVIDIA's datacenter chips don't even have display outputs, and have little to no fixed-function graphics hardware (raster and raytracing units), and entirely different memory PHYs (none of NVIDIA's consumer cards have ever used HBM).

Not binning an M4 Max for an iPhone, but an M4 Pro with a few GPU or CPU cores disabled is clearly a thing.

Same for NVIDIA. The 4080 is a 4090 die with some SMs disabled.

The desktop 4090 uses the AD102 die, the laptop 4090 and desktop 4080 use the AD103 die, and the laptop 4080 uses the AD104 die. I'm not at all denying that binning is a thing, but you and other commenters are exaggerating the extent of it and underestimating how many separate dies are designed to span a wide product line like GPUs or Apple's computers/tablets/phones.

Otherwise, yes, if a chip doesn't make M4 Max, it can make M4 Pro. If not, M4. If not, A18 Pro. If not that, A18.

And even all of the above mentioned marketing names come in different core configurations. M4 Max can be 14 CPU Cores / 32 GPU cores, and it can also be 16 CPU cores and 40 GPU cores.

So yeah, I'd agree that Apple has _extreme_ binning flexibility. It's likely also the reason why we got A19 / A19 Pro / M5 first, and we still don't have M5 Pro or M5 Max yet. Yields not high enough for M5 Max yet.

Unfortunately I don't think they bin down even lower (say, to S chips used in Apple Watches), but maybe in the future they will.

In retrospect, Apple ditching Intel was truly a gamechanging move. They didn't even have to troll everyone by putting an Intel i9 into a chassis that couldn't even cool an i7 to boost the comparison figures, but I guess they had to hedge their bet.

No, that's entirely wrong. All of those are different dies. The larger chips wouldn't even fit in phones, or most iPad motherboards, and I'm not sure a M4 Max or M4 Pro SoC package could even fit in a MacBook Air.

As a general rule, if you think a company might ever be selling a piece of silicon with more than half of it disabled, you're probably wrong and need to re-check your facts and assumptions.

There are two levels of Max Chip, but think of a Max as two pros on die (this is simplification, you can also think of as pro as being two normal cores tied together), so a bad max can't be binned into a pro. But a high-spec Max can be binned into a low-spec Max.

As you cut SMs from a die you move from the 3090 down the stack, for instance. That’s yield management right there.

If you want binning in action, the RTX ones other than the top ones, are it. Look for the A30 too, of which I was surprised there was no successor. Either they had better yields on Hopper or they didn't get enough from the A30...

That said, I can't really disagree with anything in this. As a developer (and socially conscious human) I want to move in the direction of openness.

I would love for there to be a world where Mozilla maintains Firefox and can make for product projects that provide higher value. I also have a pipe dream of one day someone like (and if they read this, and anyone who reads this will think I'm crazy) CloudFlare just buys Firefox itself from Mozilla so it can finally be funded correctly. CloudFlare has an interesting talent pool and I'm sure there's people who work with Rust / have worked with Rust who can help fund something like Firefox. Then I would like to see them create a true open foundation whose entire bottom line goes towards Firefox, not to anything else.

Free the fox from corporate shennanigans. By my own corporate shennanigans. And CF could be swapped out with any company bold enough to free the fox.

Unfortunately the side bets are disproportionately visible relative to the vast majority of what they actually do, which is ship millions of lines of code in browser improvements every quarter, keeping pace with Google despite a fraction of Google's resources.

I certainly think a better strategic partner than Google would be ideal. Yahoo had a strategically promising moment that slipped through its fingers that I think will always be a what-if. Cloudflare is interesting because they're very much a create-a-blue-ocean kind of company, and the problem with browsers has always been that the browser space simply isn't a revenue driver, it's something you subsidize from other businesses.

Firefox is, remarkably, the most successful self funded browser engine in the history of the world, but many great companies have come and gone in this space (e.g. Opera) and still fell behind. They invest more in the browser now than they ever have, they have shipped more production Rust code than anybody. But that's not louder than the noise in the modern internet.

I think you're right that someone like Cloudflare would be an interesting partner and I can't think of a better one off the top of my head. And if AI is eclipsing search, that threatens search licensing they're currently relying on. I don't know what AI in the browser is, what new norms, what new expectations, what core concepts are going to matter the most. But something is going to change and you have to get out ahead of that now, to be relevant tomorrow.

(Disclosure: I work at Mozilla, but not on Firefox.)

The ad I'm talking about is for a different Firefox service. I think it asks to you try your VPN or something. I'm not at home so I can't exactly tell you. But I just want to switch profile not getting bugged or judged to a different service.

Chrome makes this right. You click on the profile icon and instantly switch to a different profile.

Mozilla fucked that completely up.

I guess that's true, and that the profile switcher is in a submenu of that menu, so that's one extra click. Still a lot better than the old one though. But I agree that I wouldn't mind the profiles being in the top level menu, especially if you have, say, max. three.

There was, in my opinion, no better browser company past or present than Opera in the 2000s and 2010s (sorry Mozilla). But their example exposes the fallacy of assuming that building out great features guarantees market share gains.

opera had to earn their money.

this aside, Mozilla just now implemented tab grouping. does that mean they are going to, because of the added features, follow opera's path?

my point was that someone said how they increased development speed. and I'm saying they are breaking record in how slow it is. it's not 1y, it's since the feature appeared anywhere and it's 20y ago. what the f was Mozilla doing since then? obviously they didn't work on the features. but also they didn't work on the other list of things I mentioned since only one is fully delivered (look and feel on all platforms) and those are non-features like fore mentioned tab groupings, but core capabilities for a browser.

in everything else they are so much behind it's really a wonder they still have market share as much as they do.

As I said, my opinionated hot take is that Opera was probably the best ever at delivering features and performance beloved by users, but that wasn't enough to move the needle on market share, which is why Opera perfectly exposes the fallacy of assuming better features = better market share. In this context appealing to "business structure" is a deflection.

Also, this tab grouping argument is mistaken both on its own terms but more broadly as a stand in for the argument that the Mozilla team has supposedly done nothing. Firefox had native tab grouping years before Chrome ever had it, had arguably the best tab grouping extension of any browser due to an intentional choice to invest in an extension ecosystem that made that functionality possible, and for the most part, Firefox has never not had tab grouping. What's new is that it's back as a baked-in default rather than merely present as a best in class extension.

The idea that Firefox has done nothing is an unfortunate impression that comes from looking at a serious of unfortunately critical tech headlines and losing sight of nuts and bolts development. I don't have the patience to recite everything here, but every year they push millions of lines of new code, thousands of patches, and deliver measurable improvements to major browser components like webGPU, javascript rendering, shipping production quality rust code, and more for a browser with 30 million lines of code.

And then people simultaneously complain that Mozilla is reliant on Google for funding. There are not many good revenue options available for a browser other than selling search defaults - and AI may start choking off that revenue as well - but Mozilla also can't touch AI without being screamed at.

I mean, even literally this one sentence is self-contradictory. Thunderbird is not their browser. You complain that they "invest more effort into everything other than their browser" and then complain that they don't invest enough in Thunderbird.

No win situation for them in terms of public opinion.

* They can't get diversify their revenue to be less dependent on Google without doing things that people view as "distractions"

* They don't get credit when the "distractions" are for the public good, like LetsEncrypt, Rust, Opus / AV1, etc.

* They get punished for de-prioritizing "distractions" like Thunderbird and Servo and Rust because those distractions are popular.

* For years they were simultaneously being dragged for dropping the XUL extension ecosystem, and also dragged for low performance and lack of multiprocessing and a bunch of other things which were being kneecapped hard by the XUL extension ecosystem.

It's not like I love their management or anything, certainly they've made mistakes, but the narcissism of small differences hits them with full force relative to every other competitor in the space.

if they had set up an endowment instead of blowing it on unrelated pointless crap for decades they would have been self-funded indefinitely

they were pulling in over $500 MILLION a year

Mozilla has had an endowment for, I think, ~15 years now, and they have invested it and grown it from around $90 million to around $1.2 billion and counting. Which now is a firewall in case of emergency, as well as a resource that's helping to stand up a VC fund which is one of their most interesting pathways to diversifying revenue.

oh for fucks sake, that's even worse than blowing it on stupid ideas

JUST USE THE MONEY FOR THE BROWSER

And just so we're clear, are you suggesting they shouldn't have an endowment at all, or that they shouldn't use the endowment to create any lines of long term revenue, or that they should but spending a fraction of a percent of it on a VC fund would not be successful? Whichever one you pick, there's at least one person who's exactly as upset at Mozilla for the opposite reason.

Edit: I would go so far as to say I think the VC fund is the single best idea Mozilla has ever had for long term financial independence. It builds on the success they've had thus far (such as it is) raising money from search licensing, and then using that search licensing money to stand up the endowment. Now, the VC fund leverages the endowment in a way that's the most serious path to financial independence they've ever had.

did you read my comments in this chain?

> I would go so far as to say I think the VC fund is the single best idea Mozilla has ever had for long term financial independence.

do you look at Mozilla and see it as an example of an organisation that selected good investments over its existence?

would have it done better putting that money into treasuries? almost certainly

the point of an endowment for a foundation is to ensure the organisation continues to exist forever

not to gamble its future on 1 in 100 bets

and for a fund to have the possibility to have selected that 1 in 100: it has to be of significant size

With all the distractions they are abandoning their primary product and they are bleeding whatever miniscule market share they have. This means Google has more leverage over them and can eventually stop the funding once their market share drops beyond a threshold say 0.5% because we all know antitrust is not a strong reason anymore to keep FF alive based on trends of recent rulings.

Chrome gained marketshare not just because it was a good product but because they paid Adobe, Oracle, and legions of freeware antivirus providers lots of $$$ to put a checked-by-default box in their installers to install Google Chrome and make it the default browser for anyone not paying enough attention to uncheck the boxes, and because they targeted Firefox users visiting google.com with popups advertising how much better Chrome was. Mozilla could never do that and they would be excoriated if they tried. And as I mentioned, many of the aspects of Chrome that were indeed superior, were met with kicking and screaming when Mozilla tried to follow, e.g. choosing performance over the XUL extension ecosystem.

Sadly I think their best hope to regain marketshare is to indirectly benefit from Linux to capturing marketshare from Windows.

Exactly right. They did the dang thing with Project Quantum, a massive rewrite of the browser, a massive leap forward in stability and performance. The thing everyone asked for. And they..... continued to lose market share. Because there are other factors, like monopoly power, and distribution lock-in.

You don't have to imagine what it looks like for a browser company to lap the field with an excellent development team, creative revenue raising ideas, being ahead of the curve on mobile, having best in class stability and performance, and building out features that their core user base loves and swears by. Because Opera was that company in the 2000s and 2010s.

But even Opera had to sell to a new ownership group and abandon their Presto engine for Chromium. Because, like Spock said, you can make every decision correctly and still lose. Which is kind of depressing, but it at least helpfully bursts the bubble of people claiming changes in market share are a one-to-one relationship to specific decisions about which features to build in a browser.

I think they should have pushed for a gecko based electron alternative. End user dont really care if their favourite markdown editor or notes software is based on electron or gecko but it would have made sure that developers do not target, develop and test for only chromium based browsers.

It also wouldn't be directly revenue diversification. You can't beat Electron by selling an alternative.

Firefox has somewhat tried to target developers. There's Developer Edition with a "direct to the dev tools" focus. Firefox's Dev Tools still generally are somewhat ahead of Safari's and Chrome's (though not always Edge's, even in the Edgmium era one of the few teams that still exists that doesn't upstream everything immediately is Edge's Dev Tools work). Firefox was directly ahead on Flexbox and CSS Grid debugging tools, though now everyone else has copied them. (Not to mention that the history of Dev Tools in the first place all points back to Firebug and other Firefox extensions that went mainstream and then made sense to prioritize as out-of-the-box tools.)

Firefox probably can't do much more to target developers on its own, from a browser perspective. Targeting developers doesn't seem to move the needle enough in marketshare, either.

It's not just Electron that developers are stuck in "develop and test for only chromium based browsers" modes. There's also all the top-down pressure in corporate environments to standardize on only one browser to "cut down" on "testing costs". There are the board room-driven development cycles of "I only care if it looks good on the CEO's iPhone" or "the CEO is into Android this year, that's the focus, everything else is garbage". There's also the hard to avoid spiral of "Firefox marketshare is low, don't worry about it" to more sites not working as well in Firefox to Firefox marketshare getting lower to more "don't worry about it" websites and so on.

They did! At least three different versions of it!

It's vibes and drive by cheap shots, all the way down. I get that dabbling in adtech is not great, I get that they've cycled through side bets recently without committing to them (unlike Google?!), but it's an ounce of truth with every pound of nonsense. Mozilla Derangement Syndrome.

Wish I read this before posting my comment, I wholeheartedly agree at every level. The criticisms are a mile wide, an inch deep, and sometimes legitimate, but often deeply contradictory, and there's no attitude of accountability or self awareness when someone jumps in for the millionth time saying "don't get distracted" but also "offer something new to generate revenue".

And the factual literacy of the drive-by critics is, unfortunately, sometimes brutally off the mark and even veering into conspiratorial. Some unfortunate threads appear to be young adults reading a Mozilla 990 filing for the first time and misreading a conspiracy into every single line, very casual attitudes about accusing them of falsifying financial statements or accusations of controlled opposition, or ridiculous suggestions that they spend down their endowment on "engineering" to no particular end, and sometimes completely misrepresenting how much of a time suck and energy suck certain projects were (e.g. blockchain is sometimes on the Rap Sheet of Bad Things, but they basically wrote a white paper or two).

Which, as you note, isn't to say there's no legitimate concerns: "privacy preserving ads" is a contradiction in terms, the strategic reliance on Google is precarious, and side bets like Pocket were left to languish. In normal times I might consider myself a critic. But unfortunately too often the comment section is an out of control orgy of completely uninformed cheap shots, with an ounce of truth to every pound of confidently incorrect accusation. And that phenomenon, to my mind, is as big as any misstep Mozilla is or isn't making.

There were historical inaccuracies, some of which I expected like timeline issues and things like that, as well some things which were actually true that I did not expect (John Glenn asking for the calculations personally). In the end it is a movie meant to spark interest in NASA / science and tell a compelling story about people who helped us during a time before the Civil Rights Act. To call it "race baiting garbage" is overly dismissive and I think exposes an alarming personal bias.

No. Read the Historical Accuracy section. The movie made up a bunch of pointless racial conflict that literally didn't happen.

No it's not, the movie is virtually entirely about race relations at NASA and lying about what really happened there.

It's not merely the timeline but the substance, try reading it again. Nobody was every actually banned from bathrooms.

All said, you're comment worked. I'm angry now. Good job.

If we circumvent those privacy laws, through user licenses, or new technology - we are removing the protections of normal citizens. Therefore, the bad behavior which we already decided as a society to ban can now be perpetrated again, with perhaps a fresh new word for it to dodge said old laws.

If I understand your comment, you are essentially wondering why those old laws existed in the first place. I would suggest racism or other systemic issues, and differences in insurance premiums, are more than enough to justify the existence of privacy laws. Take a normal office job as an example over a manual labor intensive job. No reason at all that health conditions should impact that. The idea of not being hired because I have a young child, or a health condition, that would raise the group rate from the insurer passing the cost to my employer (which would be in their best interest to do) is a terrible thought. And it happened before, and we banned that practice (or did our best to do so).

All this to say, I believe HIPAA helps people, and if ChatGPT is being used to partially or fully facilitate medical decision making, they should be bound under strict laws preventing the release of that data regardless of their existing user agreements.

It’s not just medical but a broad carve out called “bona fide occupational qualifications”. If there’s a good reason for it, hiring antidiscrimination laws allow exceptions.