Couldn't they just purchase AMD (like Imagination, pocket change for Apple) with their x86 compatible architecture, improve it, rebrand it and then use it in their Mac line? They'll also of course purchase a decent GPU architecture at the same time...monopolies issues maybe?
I may be remembering incorrectly, but I believe AMD's license to the x86 architecture would vaporize upon acquisition. If Apple's years of internal GPU work have resulted in sufficient confidence to abandon Imagination Technologies, what would AMD(ATI) have to offer? Remember that Apple has obtained talent from both IT and AMD/ATI. Those people haven't been fallow since Apple acquired them. If you plot the last decade's performance trajectories for Apple, Intel, Qualcomm, AMD, NVIDIA and IT, etc, you could imagine that Apple might outrun them all.
Every chip maker is running into a brick wall called the laws of physics. Think that Moore's Law (really just an observation/prediction) can continue indefinitely? Future gains are going to be slowing down. If Apple had some processor that beat Intel's by leaps and bounds they certainly would have introduced it. If Intel was totally stupid then ARM would be beating the tar out of them.
What about Mac Pro update? Overdue for more than three years now.
...(in the past, Apple has even gotten chips from Intel EARLY).
Only when it's been a relatively low volume product, like the Mac Pro, which also became a marketing push for Intel.
One time the iMac got processors that weren't even on Intel's price list. They were slightly improved over their other chips, but still mostly the current tech. I don't foresee that happening again.
It seems possibly somewhat clear at this point what they are doing at Intel. They are trying to get everything coordinated for the 10 nm shrink. Right now, Core and Xeon are wildly out of sync.
Also, why wouldn't Apple use Coffee Lake (due 2H 2017), which should be out in time for a MacBook Pro refresh? I mean, that's obviously why it exists, to give PC manufacturers something to use for a late 2017 refresh. But probably still won't get them to 32 GB RAM, as this article states.
We are waiting for Skylake Xeons E5 and E7 (pre-release versions are already in use at Google and the like), also due 2H 2017. They use a new platform (i.e., socket), so it's a big-deal transition and with any luck it will turn out Apple has been waiting for this to release a revised Mac Pro cylinder.
As a result, I think you could maybe see Xeon go directly from Skylake to Cannon Lake. Next year, the new process-architecture-optimization model will be in place, with both Xeon and Core lines going to 10 nm at the same time.
Why does this even matter? The PC market means nothing. Its shrinking every year.
Look 10 years in the future. Do you see the PC market growing? HELL NO.
The future is iPad/iPhone/Wearbles. That's where Apple will invest in.
So because one area of Apple's business is more popular than another Apple should drop it? Brilliant¡
In the first three months of their 2017 calendar they sold 5.3 million Macs for a revenue and profit in the billions. Do you even know how much that would hurt AAPL if that were to vanish because, as you put it, "the PC market means nothing"?
You sound just like asshat pundits, like John C. Dvorak, that said Apple should abandon the Mac because the iPod was so popular and growing.
PS: The iPad has been decreasing for years, so Apple should abandon that, too, according to your logic.
Did I say anything about Apple abandoning the Mac? Stop putting words in my mouth. I simply said Mac is no longer a priority.
Again look to the future. In 10 years do you seriously think PC sales will be up or down compared to today? Its friken obvious that they will be way down. So why the hell would Apple waste too much resources on Mac, a dying product?
iPad unit sales are down because of bigger iPhones. So MacMini sales are down big. But the regular/large sized iPad sales are actually up the last year. iPad is not a dying product. I can easily see more iPads being sold 10 years from now compared to today.
"The PC market means nothing."
nothing |ˈnəTHiNG|
pronoun
• something of no importance or concern
So you believe it's something of no importance of concern, but Apple should still continue to waste resources on it. Makes perfect sense¡
I’ve never been a fan of their power draw. Wouldn’t Apple have to redesign basically everything of theirs (CPU and GPU) to get TDPs with which they’re comfortable?
Why does this even matter? The PC market means nothing. Its shrinking every year.
Look 10 years in the future. Do you see the PC market growing? HELL NO.
The future is iPad/iPhone/Wearbles. That's where Apple will invest in.
So because one area of Apple's business is more popular than another Apple should drop it? Brilliant¡
In the first three months of their 2017 calendar they sold 5.3 million Macs for a revenue and profit in the billions. Do you even know how much that would hurt AAPL if that were to vanish because, as you put it, "the PC market means nothing"?
You sound just like asshat pundits, like John C. Dvorak, that said Apple should abandon the Mac because the iPod was so popular and growing.
PS: The iPad has been decreasing for years, so Apple should abandon that, too, according to your logic.
Well, his usual hyperbole aside, there is a valid question about "how much" Apple would invest in the Mac line. Does it include to the level of Apple's own A-Series designed into packages for the Mac, with the issues of moving to an ARM architecture? Or will the investment be modest h/w enhancements with continuing s/w enhancements, but grounded in the Intel chipset?
I hope for the former, but am concerned it may the latter.
As for where Apple would focus more? While the iPad has been dropping from its peak sales, there is some thought that this is mostly 7.9" Mini models, and that the 9.7" has remained pretty solid. And even with the sales decline, the iPad installed base might be double the Mac already. Apple certainly advertises the iPad more than the Mac. On the question of investment priorities, it is not that the Mac line is dropped, it is just that it isn't invested in as the "future of computing".
If Apple do not come out with an updated iMac this year they should at least issue a press release explaining what the bottleneck is otherwise your average consumer will just see Apple as not updating their products and will look at other options.
You've got to be kidding. Apple never tells precisely why they don't do things. They may give some vague excuse but that's about it. They'll say something like, "The components aren't up to our high standards so give up your hopes of a new product." I'd probably like to hear a reasonable explanation to ease my consternation but I know it's not going to happen. I thought there were notebooks from other companies supporting 32GB RAM but maybe I'm wrong.
As for the MacPro, I'm completely puzzled about that product. I'm thinking most consumers or professionals don't have any interest in owning one. Sure I've heard some video editing people saying they're worthwhile using but that is such a tiny segment. Apple should try to reach a wider range of professional users for a MacPro. As a consumer, I might be interested in owning a six-core MacPro but those damn GPUs are too proprietary and not upgradeable in a practical sense. Besides, even those refurbished ones I think are too darn expensive for the age of the product. Aside from the cutesy trash-can design, I really can't think of anything particularly great about it.
It looks as though I'm going to have to wait for a high-end iMac and be stuck with a relatively weak mobile GPU. I don't have much of a choice if I want a Mac.
I believe he's referring to the G5 breaking the 3GHz barrier. Apple promised that, and then failed to deliver, but it was actually Motorola failing to deliver to Apple at the time. Apple switched to Intel in order to break free from that bogged-down architecture.
I'm a bit behind on this subject, but does Intel not allow the x86 architecture to be licensed out? I vaguely recall AMD going through a nasty legal battle with Intel about how they were creating their x86 chips but obviously, they are still doing it.
Apple would only make the chips for their systems, unlike AMD which sells it to anyone with the cash. It would certainly give control back to Apple an not be dependent on Intel for sure.
I'm not a fan of how Intel is being such a sloth. I know that there are huge, HUGE challenges nowadays in creating new chips due to the tiny pathways. Physics and Quantum stuff are getting in the way from what I read. However, my business depends on running Windows and it's a main reason why I use Macs. I know I'm a minority but I hope Intel and Apple resolve this issue. Intel blew a huge opportunity back in the day with the first iPhone came out and it looks like Intel may repeat history by losing a huge contract with Apple. Get with the program Intel!
Why does this even matter? The PC market means nothing. Its shrinking every year.
Look 10 years in the future. Do you see the PC market growing? HELL NO.
The future is iPad/iPhone/Wearbles. That's where Apple will invest in.
So because one area of Apple's business is more popular than another Apple should drop it? Brilliant¡
In the first three months of their 2017 calendar they sold 5.3 million Macs for a revenue and profit in the billions. Do you even know how much that would hurt AAPL if that were to vanish because, as you put it, "the PC market means nothing"?
You sound just like asshat pundits, like John C. Dvorak, that said Apple should abandon the Mac because the iPod was so popular and growing.
PS: The iPad has been decreasing for years, so Apple should abandon that, too, according to your logic.
Well, his usual hyperbole aside, there is a valid question about "how much" Apple would invest in the Mac line. Does it include to the level of Apple's own A-Series designed into packages for the Mac, with the issues of moving to an ARM architecture? Or will the investment be modest h/w enhancements with continuing s/w enhancements, but grounded in the Intel chipset?
I hope for the former, but am concerned it may the latter.
As for where Apple would focus more? While the iPad has been dropping from its peak sales, there is some thought that this is mostly 7.9" Mini models, and that the 9.7" has remained pretty solid. And even with the sales decline, the iPad installed base might be double the Mac already. Apple certainly advertises the iPad more than the Mac. On the question of investment priorities, it is not that the Mac line is dropped, it is just that it isn't invested in as the "future of computing".
1) I hope that we see an Apple-design chip for the Mac. I would expect it to be called something other than A-series, since we're already at 4 different ARM-baed chips/SoCs/PoPs/SIPs (A-series, W-series, T-series, W-series). M-series?
2) Investment in their own chips—like we're seeing with ImgTech now and PA Semi in the past—seems obvious, especially with Intel constantly pushing back and still having high prices. Plus, I'm certain Apple can optimize macOS for their systems even better than they are now if they control the entire stack, and this is something they've done many times in the past with their PC architecture.
3) Investments will always be determined by CVP, which is a main reason the Mac Pro doesn't get the attention some people want, but the Mac Pro is the smallest subset of the Mac line and Macs are account for an overwhelming amount of profit from the PC industry and on its own would make Apple a Fortune 500 company. It's not going away, even if Sog wants to tell you that design iPhone apps with Xcode for iPad would be easier and better than a Mac. As Jobs stated, there will always be trucks and cars.
Why does this even matter? The PC market means nothing. Its shrinking every year.
Look 10 years in the future. Do you see the PC market growing? HELL NO.
The future is iPad/iPhone/Wearbles. That's where Apple will invest in.
So because one area of Apple's business is more popular than another Apple should drop it? Brilliant¡
In the first three months of their 2017 calendar they sold 5.3 million Macs for a revenue and profit in the billions. Do you even know how much that would hurt AAPL if that were to vanish because, as you put it, "the PC market means nothing"?
You sound just like asshat pundits, like John C. Dvorak, that said Apple should abandon the Mac because the iPod was so popular and growing.
PS: The iPad has been decreasing for years, so Apple should abandon that, too, according to your logic.
Did I say anything about Apple abandoning the Mac? Stop putting words in my mouth. I simply said Mac is no longer a priority.
Again look to the future. In 10 years do you seriously think PC sales will be up or down compared to today? Its friken obvious that they will be way down. So why the hell would Apple waste too much resources on Mac, a dying product?
iPad unit sales are down because of bigger iPhones. So MacMini sales are down big. But the regular/large sized iPad sales are actually up the last year. iPad is not a dying product. I can easily see more iPads being sold 10 years from now compared to today.
"The PC market means nothing."
nothing |ˈnəTHiNG|
pronoun
• something of no importance or concern
So you believe it's something of no importance of concern, but Apple should still continue to waste resources on it. Makes perfect sense¡
PC market means nothing in the grand scheme of things.
The future is iPad, iPhone, AppleTV, Watch, Airpods, Services, VR, ect.
PC's are old tech. Just like 3 years ago I would say the iPod means nothing even though it still had revenue in the hundreds of millions. But it was obvious it was not the future. Like any company Apple has finite resources. And those resources are better used on platforms that are GROWING not SHRINKING (iPad platform is still growing, look at the 200,000,000 user base)
Why does this even matter? The PC market means nothing. Its shrinking every year.
Look 10 years in the future. Do you see the PC market growing? HELL NO.
The future is iPad/iPhone/Wearbles. That's where Apple will invest in.
So because one area of Apple's business is more popular than another Apple should drop it? Brilliant¡
In the first three months of their 2017 calendar they sold 5.3 million Macs for a revenue and profit in the billions. Do you even know how much that would hurt AAPL if that were to vanish because, as you put it, "the PC market means nothing"?
You sound just like asshat pundits, like John C. Dvorak, that said Apple should abandon the Mac because the iPod was so popular and growing.
PS: The iPad has been decreasing for years, so Apple should abandon that, too, according to your logic.
Did I say anything about Apple abandoning the Mac? Stop putting words in my mouth. I simply said Mac is no longer a priority.
Again look to the future. In 10 years do you seriously think PC sales will be up or down compared to today? Its friken obvious that they will be way down. So why the hell would Apple waste too much resources on Mac, a dying product?
iPad unit sales are down because of bigger iPhones. So MacMini sales are down big. But the regular/large sized iPad sales are actually up the last year. iPad is not a dying product. I can easily see more iPads being sold 10 years from now compared to today.
"The PC market means nothing."
nothing |ˈnəTHiNG|
pronoun
• something of no importance or concern
So you believe it's something of no importance of concern, but Apple should still continue to waste resources on it. Makes perfect sense¡
PC market means nothing in the grand scheme of things.
The future is iPad, iPhone, AppleTV, Watch, Airpods, Services, VR, ect.
PC's are old tech. Just like 3 years ago I would say the iPod means nothing even though it still had revenue in the hundreds of millions. But it was obvious it was not the future. Like any company Apple has finite resources. And those resources are better used on platforms that are GROWING not SHRINKING (iPad platform is still growing, look at the 200,000,000 user base)
Sell your stock if you think this is "old tech."
Why would I sell my stock when iPhone is dominating. iPad user base is growing, services is rapidly growing, Watch is dominating, and Airpods are a revolution.
The last reason I would buy Apple stock is Mac updates.
Now you're just trolling or you can't help but write stupid comments.
So Watch is dominating but the Mac isn't despite the Mac trouncing Watch. Makes sense¡ AirPods are a revolution, so in your mind they're going to replace the Mac and have a higher revenue and profit. Makes sense¡ iPhones, iPads, and Macs all had declines in 2016, but you've ignored that because it doesn't fit your narrative that Apple should get rid of the Mac, despite its growth in 2017, Its dominate in the PC market, and the large chunk it represents for Apple's bottom line. Makes sense¡ You'd invest in Apple because of the PMP market category over their PC market category that are used for building macOS, iOS, tvOS, and watchOS apps. Makes sense¡
Are you sure you're not John C. Dvorak? You want to tell us how Apple should drop macOS altogether and adopt Windows?
What about Mac Pro update? Overdue for more than three years now.
Same reason. Intel has pushed the roadmap on Xeon. And no, it's not "overdue for three years now". What kind of absurdity is that? The device was released in Late 2013 and early 2014. It wouldn't have been updated within a year anyway. It's overdue, but there's nothing that's compatible that will fit into the device.
Why does this even matter? The PC market means nothing. Its shrinking every year.
Look 10 years in the future. Do you see the PC market growing? HELL NO.
The future is iPad/iPhone/Wearbles. That's where Apple will invest in.
So because one area of Apple's business is more popular than another Apple should drop it? Brilliant¡
In the first three months of their 2017 calendar they sold 5.3 million Macs for a revenue and profit in the billions. Do you even know how much that would hurt AAPL if that were to vanish because, as you put it, "the PC market means nothing"?
You sound just like asshat pundits, like John C. Dvorak, that said Apple should abandon the Mac because the iPod was so popular and growing.
PS: The iPad has been decreasing for years, so Apple should abandon that, too, according to your logic.
Did I say anything about Apple abandoning the Mac? Stop putting words in my mouth. I simply said Mac is no longer a priority.
Again look to the future. In 10 years do you seriously think PC sales will be up or down compared to today? Its friken obvious that they will be way down. So why the hell would Apple waste too much resources on Mac, a dying product?
iPad unit sales are down because of bigger iPhones. So MacMini sales are down big. But the regular/large sized iPad sales are actually up the last year. iPad is not a dying product. I can easily see more iPads being sold 10 years from now compared to today.
"The PC market means nothing."
nothing |ˈnəTHiNG|
pronoun
• something of no importance or concern
So you believe it's something of no importance of concern, but Apple should still continue to waste resources on it. Makes perfect sense¡
PC market means nothing in the grand scheme of things.
The future is iPad, iPhone, AppleTV, Watch, Airpods, Services, VR, ect.
PC's are old tech. Just like 3 years ago I would say the iPod means nothing even though it still had revenue in the hundreds of millions. But it was obvious it was not the future. Like any company Apple has finite resources. And those resources are better used on platforms that are GROWING not SHRINKING (iPad platform is still growing, look at the 200,000,000 user base)
Sell your stock if you think this is "old tech."
Why would I sell my stock when iPhone is dominating. iPad user base is growing, services is rapidly growing, Watch is dominating, and Airpods are a revolution.
The last reason I would buy Apple stock is Mac updates.
Now you're just trolling or you can't help but write stupid comments.
So Watch is dominating but the Mac isn't despite the Mac trouncing Watch. Makes sense¡ AirPods are a revolution, so in your mind they're going to replace the Mac and have a higher revenue and profit. Makes sense¡ iPhones, iPads, and Macs all had declines in 2016, but you've ignored that because it doesn't fit your narrative that Apple should get rid of the Mac, despite its growth in 2017, Its dominate in the PC market, and the large chunk it represents for Apple's bottom line. Makes sense¡ You'd invest in Apple because of the PMP market category over their PC market category that are used for building macOS, iOS, tvOS, and watchOS apps. Makes sense¡
Are you sure you're not John C. Dvorak? You want to tell us how Apple should drop macOS altogether and adopt Windows?
When did i ever say Apple needs to get rid of Mac? I never said that. I said they should not put too many resources in it because the PC market is SHRINKING. That is UNDENIABLE. Look at the last 5 years of PC sales. Down. Down. Down. Down. The market is shrinking each year. And this will only continue. In 10 years the PC market will probably be HALF of what it was 5 years ago.
Watch is dominating. It is dominating the wearable sector that has massive growth in the next decade. While Mac is SHRINKING, wearables like Watch will only keep GROWING in the next decade. Same with Airpods.
Sure iPads/iPhones shrunk in 2016. But one year does not make a trend. Look at iPad/iPhone growth the last 5 years. The total iOS market is GROWING
The concept is SIMPLE. Invest heavily in lines of business that have massive future growth - iOS devices and wearables. Investing heavily in a shrinking business line (PC market) is foolish.
Stop living in the past Bro
You said they are nothing to Apple. Hence, you're claiming it's dead weight. As someone that cares so deeply about the success of the company you would then want them to eschew product categories that give them noting in return. I've repeatedly shown that not only does the Mac product category mean a lot to Apple, that they continue to break new ground, yet you keep arguing that it's of no important to Apple because its of no importance to you. Well done, Dvorak¡
PS: Are you going to cry for Tim Cook to resign once Macs are updated once again? Did you really think that a new MacBook Pro with a decade of R&D to create a T1-chip that runs OS X based on watchOS with a OLED touch bar display, Touch ID, and Apple Pay was a one-off, last hurrah before they close up that entire division? Good one¡
Why does this even matter? The PC market means nothing. Its shrinking every year.
Look 10 years in the future. Do you see the PC market growing? HELL NO.
The future is iPad/iPhone/Wearbles. That's where Apple will invest in.
So because one area of Apple's business is more popular than another Apple should drop it? Brilliant¡
In the first three months of their 2017 calendar they sold 5.3 million Macs for a revenue and profit in the billions. Do you even know how much that would hurt AAPL if that were to vanish because, as you put it, "the PC market means nothing"?
You sound just like asshat pundits, like John C. Dvorak, that said Apple should abandon the Mac because the iPod was so popular and growing.
PS: The iPad has been decreasing for years, so Apple should abandon that, too, according to your logic.
Well, his usual hyperbole aside, there is a valid question about "how much" Apple would invest in the Mac line. Does it include to the level of Apple's own A-Series designed into packages for the Mac, with the issues of moving to an ARM architecture? Or will the investment be modest h/w enhancements with continuing s/w enhancements, but grounded in the Intel chipset?
I hope for the former, but am concerned it may the latter.
As for where Apple would focus more? While the iPad has been dropping from its peak sales, there is some thought that this is mostly 7.9" Mini models, and that the 9.7" has remained pretty solid. And even with the sales decline, the iPad installed base might be double the Mac already. Apple certainly advertises the iPad more than the Mac. On the question of investment priorities, it is not that the Mac line is dropped, it is just that it isn't invested in as the "future of computing".
1) I hope that we see an Apple-design chip for the Mac. I would expect it to be called something other than A-series, since we're already at 4 different ARM-baed chips/SoCs/PoPs/SIPs (A-series, W-series, T-series, W-series). M-series?
M is the motion coprocessor. Not a major line, and has been incorporated into the A die, but still, makes more sense to choose a different letter.
Also you've got W twice You're missing the S series, which is in the Apple Watch.
iMac in the title, but I somehow missed any discussion in the article. We need a new iMac. (might be the only ones out there that would say so). Come on, iMac with Touch Bar keyboard. Bring it on.
Why does this even matter? The PC market means nothing. Its shrinking every year.
Look 10 years in the future. Do you see the PC market growing? HELL NO.
The future is iPad/iPhone/Wearbles. That's where Apple will invest in.
So because one area of Apple's business is more popular than another Apple should drop it? Brilliant¡
In the first three months of their 2017 calendar they sold 5.3 million Macs for a revenue and profit in the billions. Do you even know how much that would hurt AAPL if that were to vanish because, as you put it, "the PC market means nothing"?
You sound just like asshat pundits, like John C. Dvorak, that said Apple should abandon the Mac because the iPod was so popular and growing.
PS: The iPad has been decreasing for years, so Apple should abandon that, too, according to your logic.
Well, his usual hyperbole aside, there is a valid question about "how much" Apple would invest in the Mac line. Does it include to the level of Apple's own A-Series designed into packages for the Mac, with the issues of moving to an ARM architecture? Or will the investment be modest h/w enhancements with continuing s/w enhancements, but grounded in the Intel chipset?
I hope for the former, but am concerned it may the latter.
As for where Apple would focus more? While the iPad has been dropping from its peak sales, there is some thought that this is mostly 7.9" Mini models, and that the 9.7" has remained pretty solid. And even with the sales decline, the iPad installed base might be double the Mac already. Apple certainly advertises the iPad more than the Mac. On the question of investment priorities, it is not that the Mac line is dropped, it is just that it isn't invested in as the "future of computing".
1) I hope that we see an Apple-design chip for the Mac. I would expect it to be called something other than A-series, since we're already at 4 different ARM-baed chips/SoCs/PoPs/SIPs (A-series, W-series, T-series, W-series). M-series?
M is the motion coprocessor. Not a major line, and has been incorporated into the A die, but still, makes more sense to choose a different letter.
Also you've got W twice You're missing the S series, which is in the Apple Watch.
1) Thanks. I clearly forgot about the motion coprocessor.
2) Yes, S-series for Watch. So what what other naming conventions do you think they'd use, if any?
Comments
One time the iMac got processors that weren't even on Intel's price list. They were slightly improved over their other chips, but still mostly the current tech. I don't foresee that happening again.
Also, why wouldn't Apple use Coffee Lake (due 2H 2017), which should be out in time for a MacBook Pro refresh? I mean, that's obviously why it exists, to give PC manufacturers something to use for a late 2017 refresh. But probably still won't get them to 32 GB RAM, as this article states.
We are waiting for Skylake Xeons E5 and E7 (pre-release versions are already in use at Google and the like), also due 2H 2017. They use a new platform (i.e., socket), so it's a big-deal transition and with any luck it will turn out Apple has been waiting for this to release a revised Mac Pro cylinder.
As a result, I think you could maybe see Xeon go directly from Skylake to Cannon Lake. Next year, the new process-architecture-optimization model will be in place, with both Xeon and Core lines going to 10 nm at the same time.
"The PC market means nothing."
So you believe it's something of no importance of concern, but Apple should still continue to waste resources on it. Makes perfect sense¡
I hope for the former, but am concerned it may the latter.
As for where Apple would focus more? While the iPad has been dropping from its peak sales, there is some thought that this is mostly 7.9" Mini models, and that the 9.7" has remained pretty solid. And even with the sales decline, the iPad installed base might be double the Mac already. Apple certainly advertises the iPad more than the Mac. On the question of investment priorities, it is not that the Mac line is dropped, it is just that it isn't invested in as the "future of computing".
I believe he's referring to the G5 breaking the 3GHz barrier. Apple promised that, and then failed to deliver, but it was actually Motorola failing to deliver to Apple at the time. Apple switched to Intel in order to break free from that bogged-down architecture.
Apple would only make the chips for their systems, unlike AMD which sells it to anyone with the cash. It would certainly give control back to Apple an not be dependent on Intel for sure.
I'm not a fan of how Intel is being such a sloth. I know that there are huge, HUGE challenges nowadays in creating new chips due to the tiny pathways. Physics and Quantum stuff are getting in the way from what I read. However, my business depends on running Windows and it's a main reason why I use Macs. I know I'm a minority but I hope Intel and Apple resolve this issue. Intel blew a huge opportunity back in the day with the first iPhone came out and it looks like Intel may repeat history by losing a huge contract with Apple. Get with the program Intel!
2) Investment in their own chips—like we're seeing with ImgTech now and PA Semi in the past—seems obvious, especially with Intel constantly pushing back and still having high prices. Plus, I'm certain Apple can optimize macOS for their systems even better than they are now if they control the entire stack, and this is something they've done many times in the past with their PC architecture.
3) Investments will always be determined by CVP, which is a main reason the Mac Pro doesn't get the attention some people want, but the Mac Pro is the smallest subset of the Mac line and Macs are account for an overwhelming amount of profit from the PC industry and on its own would make Apple a Fortune 500 company. It's not going away, even if Sog wants to tell you that design iPhone apps with Xcode for iPad would be easier and better than a Mac. As Jobs stated, there will always be trucks and cars.
What's wrong with Kaby Lake?
So Watch is dominating but the Mac isn't despite the Mac trouncing Watch. Makes sense¡
AirPods are a revolution, so in your mind they're going to replace the Mac and have a higher revenue and profit. Makes sense¡
iPhones, iPads, and Macs all had declines in 2016, but you've ignored that because it doesn't fit your narrative that Apple should get rid of the Mac, despite its growth in 2017, Its dominate in the PC market, and the large chunk it represents for Apple's bottom line. Makes sense¡
You'd invest in Apple because of the PMP market category over their PC market category that are used for building macOS, iOS, tvOS, and watchOS apps. Makes sense¡
Are you sure you're not John C. Dvorak? You want to tell us how Apple should drop macOS altogether and adopt Windows?
PS: Are you going to cry for Tim Cook to resign once Macs are updated once again? Did you really think that a new MacBook Pro with a decade of R&D to create a T1-chip that runs OS X based on watchOS with a OLED touch bar display, Touch ID, and Apple Pay was a one-off, last hurrah before they close up that entire division? Good one¡
Also you've got W twice
2) Yes, S-series for Watch. So what what other naming conventions do you think they'd use, if any?