The M1 Chip, 1.0 turbocharged european vehicles, 3000mah battery iphones all have one thing in common. They try to make up for what they lack in hardware in the software department. This is called fraud and “getting tricked by a business”. For what its worth they are efficient in their act but they lack efficacy.

Polemics to the side, the performance advantage to the M1 comes from a new* architecture that requires different (not necessarily more) software. Good luck running any CPU without software. (and, if anything, the M1 as a RISC has less microcode than i86, a CISC). Apple was able to pull this off as they have more control of the hardware they run on, but they also built very good compatibility libraries, ported compilers, etc.

Turbocharging takes some of the energy being discarded by an IC engine and recycles it into better performance or higher efficiency (pick one). I’ve never seen one with software, other than changes to the injection map and ignition. But they work fine with old-skool carburetion / mechanical injection control (common in aviation, where a turbo is important so as to not lose performance as altitude goes up / air pressure goes down)

Feel free to rant about iPhones and reparability and Silicon Valley, but remember, the AOSP (Android open source project) is also there. There is nothing in that project that forbids reparability — that’s more on the hardware manufacturers. Any built-to-be-repairable phone is going to be built to use a version of AOSP.

*not really new: the notion of RISC goes all the way back to Acorn Computers in the 80s(Acorn Reduced Instruction Machine or ARM) — but, as it’s in a lot of mobile devices and there’s been a ridiculously lot of generational improvement (a two year cycle generates a lot of pressure)