Adam Chandler (Reddit, Amazon):
Right now, the iPad mini with an A17 Pro and 8Gb of RAM is $399 through some retail partners.
[…]
Something surprising happened since picking this up. Following setup, I’d start casually grabbing it and carrying it around the house. The mini fits in my cargo shorts and pants pockets of my mostly-outdoors-hiking-pants that have larger pockets. It fits in the tank bag of my motorcycle and I can hold it with one hand with my thumb and index finger around the backside then interact with my other hand.
The display actually has a higher pixels per inch than two of my other devices at 326 PPI (MBP @ 254, iPhone at 460, iPad at 264). So clarity of this display compared to my OLED iPad Pro or MiniLED MacBook Pro is actually more crisp and I just wish it was slightly brighter outside or had a nano-texture display.
I found triaging emails, reading RSS feeds, Instapaper stories or Reddit to be most of what I navigate to. Anything that may prompt typing like MS Teams, Slack, Safari or Messages I avoid because I’m not prepared to thumb through when I can literally get up and go to my MacBook Pro and compose the message even faster.
For my purposes, the “pro” stuff just isn’t there on the iPad, and I’m not sure it ever will be. The iPad Pro with its keyboard is heavier and more expensive than a MacBook Air, yet less capable. But there’s certainly room for something between an iPhone and a Mac. For me, this has mostly been my Kindle, because its weight and display are better for reading than anything Apple offers. But if you want to do more than reading, the iPad mini is a good mix of capabilities, size, and price. Apple doesn’t update it very often, so the time to buy is right when it comes out or when there’s a third-party price drop like this.
To me, if you’re trying to use a keyboard with an iPad, you’ve failed. It’s better to lean into what it’s good at. For years, Apple tried to resist the idea of an iPad as an iPhone with a larger screen. But the apps have trended in that direction, and I think that’s actually not a bad way to think of it. It’s actually what a lot of people want.
Previously:
Apple A17 Pro Bargain iPad iPad mini iPadOS iPadOS 18 Kindle
Dominic Preston (MacRumors, Hacker News, Slashdot, TechCrunch, The Register):
Fortnite maker Epic Games has announced that Apple has blocked the game’s return to iOS. Following the rejection, Fortnite is no longer available on iPhones and iPads even in the European Union, where it had previously been available to download through the Epic Games Store.
“Apple has blocked our Fortnite submission so we cannot release to the US App Store or to the Epic Games Store for iOS in the European Union,” the company posted on the official Fortnite X account. “Now, sadly, Fortnite on iOS will be offline worldwide until Apple unblocks it.”
They do not actually say that Apple rejected the app or what Apple’s specific issue was.
Steve Troughton-Smith:
we do not know what Epic means by ‘blocked’, so it could mean that Epic submitted the exact same build of the app to the App Store as external stores, and because it was rejected from one it was automatically rejected from all (and that a new build could be submitted). It could alternatively mean that App Review has invoked the spam clause, and has paused all further submissions of that app, or all apps for that developer account
Epic may be manually withholding the existing version from the Epic Games Store on iOS as it is no longer correctly versioned to talk to servers in today’s wider content release
Riley Testut:
From talking with Epic this is my understanding: Fortnite wasn’t rejected by Apple, it just wasn’t approved by today when they needed it to be. So they’re disabling new downloads for now.
However, because you can only submit an app for notarization OR App Store, they couldn’t submit an update to just Epic Games Store/AltStore until they pulled it from App Store review.
Apple does allow having multiple SKUs for the same app, and in the past has required this to take advantage of region-specific options.
Riley Testut:
We have separate SKUs for Delta and the beta version of Delta for this reason, but technically Guideline 4.3(a) (which applies to notarization) says “Don’t create multiple Bundle IDs of the same app”
My guess is Epic just didn’t think about it though and submitted the SKU they already had thinking it wouldn’t be an issue
Chance Miller:
Apple says that it did not take action to block Epic Games from releasing its Fortnite update in the European Union. Instead, the company asked it to resubmit the EU update without including the US to avoid impacting other regions.
Juli Clover:
Apple today clarified that it has not blocked Epic Games from updating the iOS Fortnite app in the European Union, but it is not planning to allow Epic Games to offer Fortnite in the United States App Store at the current time.
Jeff Johnson:
Apple’s statement to Bloomberg is poorly worded and vague. MacRumors appears to reading a lot into it, without any additional, direct clarification from Apple.
Epic’s public statements are also poorly worded and vague.
It would be nice if these fucking companies communicated precisely and accurately. Instead they seem content to play PR games.
Jeff Johnson:
So you can submit the same app build for both the App Store and an EU marketplace, but if you do then the review process is combined and uses the stricter App Store criteria instead of the more lenient EU criteria.
However, this doesn’t explain why Fortnite is unavailable in the EU, because the mere rejection of a new submission doesn’t remove the current version from distribution.
Previously:
Update (2025-05-19): Jeff Johnson:
These tweets, as they are still called, have given many people the impression that Apple is indefinitely blocking Epic Games from updating its iPhone app Fortnite in the European Union, where it’s available in an alternative marketplace outside the App Store, as prescribed by the EU Digital Markets Act. I’ll cite several sources, including court documents and Apple’s developer documentation, to show that Epic Games could still update Fortnite in the EU, if they chose to do so.
[…]
Presumably, “unchecking the relevant box” refers to the Review Type in the screenshot from the Apple developer documentation. I am puzzled, though, by the phrase “separately through an entity other than Epic Sweden.” I have no idea what Apple’s attorney is referring to here, especially since the previous paragraph said, “regardless of which Epic-related entity submits the app.” Purely speculating, the only interpretation that makes a bit of sense to me is that Apple wants Epic’s developer account for alternative distribution in the EU to remain devoted exclusively to that purpose and completely avoid touching the App Store, whereas an entirely separate account could submit Fortnite to the App Store, although of course Apple has no current intention to approve such a submission, pending court decisions.
[…]
To be perfectly clear: Apple is indefinitely blocking the May 14 submission of Fortnite that includes both the US App Store and the EU alternative marketplace, but Apple is not blocking EU-only submissions of Fortnite, which can continue at any time.
Previously:
App Marketplaces App Store App Store Rejection Epic Games External iOS Payments Fortnite iOS iOS 18 iOS App
Apple (Hacker News, MacRumors):
Starting today, CarPlay Ultra, the next generation of CarPlay, is available with new Aston Martin vehicle orders in the U.S. and Canada, and will be available for existing models that feature the brand’s next-generation infotainment system through a software update in the coming weeks. CarPlay Ultra builds on the capabilities of CarPlay and provides the ultimate in-car experience by deeply integrating with the vehicle to deliver the best of iPhone and the best of the car. It provides information for all of the driver’s screens, including real-time content and gauges in the instrument cluster, while reflecting the automaker’s look and feel and offering drivers a customizable experience. Many other automakers around the world are working to bring CarPlay Ultra to drivers, including newly committed brands Hyundai, Kia, and Genesis.
[…]
CarPlay Ultra provides content for all the driver’s screens, including the instrument cluster, with dynamic and beautiful options for the speedometer, tachometer, fuel gauge, temperature gauge, and more, bringing a consistent look and feel to the entire driving experience. Drivers can choose to show information from their iPhone, like maps and media, along with information that comes from the car, such as advanced driver assistance systems and tire pressure, right in the instrument cluster.
Widgets are good, but I don’t like what they’re doing with the instrument cluster and other controls. I worry that at some point Apple is going to strong-arm the automakers into requiring that, if I use CarPlay for maps and entertainment, I also have to give Apple control over the gauges and climate settings. Aside from not liking their designs, I don’t want my instruments to freeze due to an iOS bug, and I don’t want to see a red badge because I’m not subscribed to Apple Music. (Both of these already happen with CarPlay, but at least it’s not right in the middle of the steering wheel.)
Dan Moren:
This update has traveled a bumpy road with a lot of detours since its initial introduction at WWDC 2022. At the time, Apple said the first car models with support would be announced in late 2023, and named a variety of partners, none of which have yet delivered a product. Aston Martin, notably, was not on that initial list.
Adam Engst:
The delay may have been caused by the need to work with automakers to assuage concerns about Apple taking over the infotainment experience, effectively turning the car’s user interface into an extension of iOS. No automaker wants its cars to be thought of as iPhone accessories.
John Gruber (Mastodon):
So it’s a little late, but by the standards of the auto industry, not too late. It looks really good — Apple’s Newsroom article is replete with photos and videos showing it in action. It feels true to both Apple’s and Aston Martin’s brand identities — but I’d say more Apple-y than Aston Martin-y, simply because the typography is all San Francisco.
Quinn Nelson:
CarPlay Ultra (terrible name) looks like garbage. Some of the worst tap targets I’ve seen in any car ever. Like, what is this list? Like, three 2”x2” buttons would have even been better.
We do not want or need SwiftUI in the car lol
This is just wretched.
Mario Guzmán:
Sadly, Apple Platforms UI has just become navigation you drill into with lists. This alone captures like 90% of all UX out there on Apple Platforms.
Lists, lists, and more lists. Like Quinn said, this would have been better if it showed layouts one would typically see in a vehicle, not a phone.
This also seems unsafe… they expect you to drill and read labels while you’re driving?
Previously:
Update (2025-05-16): Dimitri Bouniol:
Pretty sure in a WWDC session last year, Apple explained that the instrument cluster is not rendered or streamed from iOS — instead, the phone sends over a package of assets to the car, and the car uses a basic set of GLSL-like commands to render the various instruments live on its own render stack.
Update (2025-05-19): Top Gear:
We’ve tried it out, in an Aston Martin DBX, so here is how new Apple CarPlay Ultra works…
Via John Gruber:
There’s an accompanying blog post too, but the video (around 18 minutes) is (unsurprisingly, from Top Gear) better. It’s just a great tour of everything from how you set it up to what it offers, and what the various “themes” look like — and how you switch between them.
[…]
One thing Aston did right is that they still have a lot of physical controls — clicking buttons and twisting dials — for the most essential features like climate control. As you’d hope, the CarPlay Ultra interface updates live as you manipulate those physical controls in the car.
Update (2025-05-23): Joe Rossignol:
Apple last week announced the launch of CarPlay Ultra, and it offers a Radio app, allowing you to control AM and FM radio stations within CarPlay. With regular CarPlay, you must switch between CarPlay and your vehicle's built-in software interface to control the radio, so CarPlay Ultra will be more convenient for this purpose.
CarPlay Ultra's built-in Radio app can also be used to control satellite radio stations, but this is less notable given that SiriusXM already offers a CarPlay app.
Joe Rosensteel:
There’s so much more Apple needs to do with CarPlay, fixes that would also benefit CarPlay Ultra. I use CarPlay all the time, and there are plenty of issues that don’t seem to be on Apple’s roadmap. If Apple improves CarPlay, it also improves CarPlay Ultra. That being said, here are some of my biggest outstanding issues with CarPlay today.
He has some great suggestions.
Update (2025-06-25): Kana Inagaki and Michael Acton:
Apple is facing resistance from the automotive industry over its CarPlay Ultra software system, which the tech group launched in an attempt to take over a vehicle’s dashboard for the first time.
German luxury brands Mercedes-Benz and Audi as well as Volvo Cars, Polestar, and Renault said they had no plans to bring the upgraded software to their vehicles, despite earlier indications from Apple that they would.
While few have followed General Motors, which announced in 2023 it would stop installing CarPlay or Android Auto on some of its EV models in North America, there is increasing debate as to how much carmakers should allow tech groups to take over the inside of a vehicle.
Car CarPlay Design iOS iOS 18 iOS Widgets
Andy Masley:
It’s not bad for the environment if you or any number of people use ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, Grok, or other large language model (LLM) chatbots. You can use ChatGPT as much as you like without worrying that you’re doing any harm to the planet.
[…]
Throughout this post I’ll assume the average ChatGPT query uses 3 Watt-hours (Wh) of energy, which is 10x as much as a Google search. This statistic is likely wrong. ChatGPT’s energy use is probably lower according to EpochAI. Google’s might be lower too, or maybe higher now that they’re incorporating AI into every search. We’re a little in the dark on this, but we can set a reasonable range. It’s hard for me to find a statistic that implies ChatGPT uses more than 10x as much energy as Google, so I’ll stick with this as an upper bound to be charitable to ChatGPT’s critics.
[…]
If you multiply an extremely small value by 10, it can still be so small that it shouldn’t factor into your decisions.
[…]
They hear about AI data centers rapidly growing, look around, and see that everyone’s using ChatGPT, and assume there must be some connection. […] The mistake they’re making is simple: ChatGPT and other AI chatbots are extremely, extremely small parts of AI’s energy demand.
Via Adam Engst:
Masley calculates that, on a daily basis, the average American uses enough energy for 10,000 ChatGPT prompts and consumes enough water for 24,000–61,000 prompts.
Wayne Williams:
The power needed to run generative AI is pushing infrastructure beyond what traditional air cooling can handle.
To explore the scale of the challenge, I spoke with Daren Shumate, founder of Shumate Engineering, and Stephen Spinazzola, the firm’s Director of Mission Critical Services.
[…]
A typical Chat-GPT query uses about 10 times more energy than a Google search – and that’s just for a basic generative AI function. More advanced queries require substantially more power that have to go through an AI Cluster Farm to process large-scale computing between multiple machines.
Dan Drake:
If you’re measuring energy consumption, you need to do a kind of “lifecycle analysis” -- if the choice is between using a traditional search engine and asking a chatbot, you should compare the entire workflow with each.
If I do a regular web search for something, I will frequently click three to four of the results and open them in new tabs, because I’m not sure exactly which one will answer my question; I might do another search. Each of those loads a website, with all the accompanying HTML, JS, and so on.
With chatbots, I find it’s more common for the response to have exactly what I want. “One and done”, as they say.
Also, as AI gets better, people will use it more. They will ask it to do deep research tasks that they would not have even attempted with Google. Or that perhaps they would have paid a person to do.
Update (2025-05-19): There are Hacker News and Lobsters pages for Masley’s post. Simon Willison says it’s “by far the most convincing rebuttal of this idea that I’ve seen anywhere.” Michael Lazar wrote a rebuttal, which I find to be long on axe grinding and rhetorical criticisms and short on substance (via Dustin Westphal). Masley has a follow-up post about what he got wrong.
I think the best criticism is that the narrow question Masley is investigating is not what really matters. If you’re against the idea of LLMs or the overall energy consumption of AI (including training and non-chatbot uses), you don’t particularly care about the incremental cost of one more person using ChatGPT. Also, the numbers for ChatGPT may not apply to other systems such as Grok.
Stephen Hackett:
As I wrote about earlier this week, xAI has broken ground on a second data center on Tulane Road here in Memphis that will require an unbelievable amount of electricity.
[…]
As seen here, the SELC has photographic evidence that some 35 turbines have been in operation at xAI’s initial data center, despite Memphis Mayor Paul Young claiming in mid April that only 15 were in use. If 15 strikes you as an oddly specific number, it’s because the Shelby County Health Department’s permit to xAI only covers 15 permanent units.
If the plan outlined in this documents comes to pass, there could be anywhere between 40 to 90 turbines running in south Memphis across the two sites.
Matt Birchler:
I could keep going, but I have some very real options for not only offsetting my ChatGPT usage, but also radically reducing my tech energy footprint overall. The easiest win for me is scheduling my Synology to power down overnight.
[…]
I didn’t write this post to suggest we should all use as much energy as possible, screw the environment, let’s just burn it all down. My intention was to present the same ChatGPT and other LLM energy use numbers you see in alarmist articles in a different way to show that you can tell different stories depending on how you present the same data. Do LLMs use more energy than a lot of other digital actions? Yeah, they seem to, but the base number is so microscopically small that we still aren’t dealing with large numbers in the grand scheme of things.
Update (2025-05-23): James O’Donnell and Casey Crownhart:
Today, new analysis by MIT Technology Review provides an unprecedented and comprehensive look at how much energy the AI industry uses—down to a single query—to trace where its carbon footprint stands now, and where it’s headed, as AI barrels towards billions of daily users.
[…]
By 2028, the researchers estimate, the power going to AI-specific purposes will rise to between 165 and 326 terawatt-hours per year. That’s more than all electricity currently used by US data centers for all purposes; it’s enough to power 22% of US households each year.
[…]
The Lawrence Berkeley researchers offered a blunt critique of where things stand, saying that the information disclosed by tech companies, data center operators, utility companies, and hardware manufacturers is simply not enough to make reasonable projections about the unprecedented energy demands of this future or estimate the emissions it will create. They offered ways that companies could disclose more information without violating trade secrets, such as anonymized data-sharing arrangements, but their report acknowledged that the architects of this massive surge in AI data centers have thus far not been transparent, leaving them without the tools to make a plan.
Via Nick Heer:
This robust story comes on the heels of a series of other discussions about how much energy is used by A.I. products and services. Last month, for example, Andy Masley published a comparison of using ChatGPT against other common activities. The Economist ran another, and similar articles have been published before. As far as I can tell, they all come down to the same general conclusion: training A.I. models is energy-intensive, using A.I. products is not, lots of things we do online and offline have a greater impact on the environment, and the current energy use of A.I. is the lowest it will be from now on.
Nick Heer:
Thinking about the energy “footprint” of artificial intelligence products makes it a good time to re-link to Mark Kaufman’s excellent 2020 Mashable article in which he explores the idea of a carbon footprint.
Update (2025-06-11): Jay Peters:
OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, in a blog post published Tuesday, says an average ChatGPT query uses about 0.000085 gallons of water, or “roughly one fifteenth of a teaspoon.” He made the claim as part of a broader post on his predictions about how AI will change the world.
Artificial Intelligence ChatGPT Claude Environment Google Gemini/Bard Grok OpenAI Web xAI
