Good observation. The two are parting ways. You can see this is coming by a variety of different moves by Intel. First, Intel and Google teamed up to compete against Apple and Microsoft to buy the Nortel patents. Second, Intel is actively encouraging Windows PC makers to copy Apple's designs when Apple is a customer of Intel.
I think Intel is afraid of ARM. Currently, iPads using ARM processors are making a dent in low end computer sales, which generally use Intel processors. Eventually ARM will be powerful enough to run desktop and notebook computers. Many think Apple will come out with an ARM based Macbook Air further taking sales from Intel.
On top of that, Windows 8 will support ARM processors. If Microsoft follows in Apple's steps and encourages hardware manufactures to use ARM processors in low end computers (a bulk of the market) Intel will really be hurting.
Apple isn't encouraging its customers to gain up on another customer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez
Why is the word "hate" used when anyone makes a competitive move against Apple, but not when describing a competitive moved by Apple against anyone else?
Good observation. The two are parting ways. You can see this is coming by a variety of different moves by Intel. First, Intel and Google teamed up to compete against Apple and Microsoft to buy the Nortel patents. Second, Intel is actively encouraging Windows PC makers to copy Apple's designs when Apple is a customer of Intel.
I think Intel is afraid of ARM. Currently, iPads using ARM processors are making a dent in low end computer sales, which generally use Intel processors. Eventually ARM will be powerful enough to run desktop and notebook computers. Many think Apple will come out with an ARM based Macbook Air further taking sales from Intel.
On top of that, Windows 8 will support ARM processors. If Microsoft follows in Apple's steps and encourages hardware manufactures to use ARM processors in low end computers (a bulk of the market) Intel will really be hurting.
Perhaps. Yet another platform shift from Intel to ARM would annoy developers (though it might make it easier to merge iOS and OS X). Look at the issues that dropping Rosetta support from Lion caused, and the PowerPC transition was 5 years ago. AMD might be a more immediate threat than ARM if they can start matching Intel's CPU power (their integrated GPUs are already a lot better). The success or failure of Windows on ARM remains to be seen. If it's just on tablets, it may not take off, and it has limited appeal on desktops since current Windows programs won't run on the ARM platform, either.
I'm guessing Intel doesn't want to find itself dependent upon any one manufacturer for its ULV mobile chips. Right now, Apple and Samsung are the two main companies using the 17W mobile chips (Dell and HP use primarily the 35W chips). The Ultrabooks would drive further demand for the 17W, which helps Intel pay for the research and development of Ivy Bridge and Haswell, which are designed on the premise of reducing energy consumption while increasing graphics and computing power.
Why is the word "hate" used when anyone makes a competitive move against Apple, but not when describing a competitive moved by Apple against anyone else?
Stats can be fun but you have to start with good data. Gizmodo makes stuff up. All the time. They are probably the furthest from a "good source" on anything to do with computers or gadgets.
In one market segment. At this moment in time. Apple rules the $1000+ laptop market segment but doesn't offer a single product in the ~$500 segment. If you want cheap (and obviously cheap != value), Windows or Linux are your only options....
Cheap yes, at least in terms of initial purchase price which is sadly all the average idiot thinks of when buying.
Value? Not so much.
Even before Mac products started to be aggressively priced within their particular segments, it was already true that Macs were cheaper than Windows computers if you considered the total cost of ownership.
It's been the smart move to buy a Mac (even if you are a poor jerk in a trailer in Arkansas or something), for many years now and will save you money in the long run over any Windows based PC however cheap.
And, yet, this article is about how Windows systems are not going to be able to beat the Mac on price.
Amazing how so much ignorance abounds.
Reliant on Office? Perhaps you're not aware that Office has been available on Macs since the beginning.
IE-only web apps? These are actually far less of a problem than they've ever been. I can think of only one site I can't access with my Mac. And I can simply fire up Parallels to get to that site.
I agree that OS X isn't going to be dominant. Too many ignorant people like you spreading FUD.
The fact remains that in a corporate environment, they can buy PCs for $400-$500 with a monitor. And for most employees, who use nothing but email, Word, Excel and Powerpoint, it actually works fine. The Mac might be capable of so much more, but except in design departments, they wouldn't get much use anyway. And as apps move to the cloud, I think this will actually hurt Apple in the long run because there's less differentiation in browser-based software.
One can talk about total cost of ownership, productivity, etc., but when you have to buy 500 computers, executives are mainly concerned about the immediate capital costs and it's almost impossible to calculate the productivity increases because work expands to fill the time allotted to it anyway.
A lot of businesses are ... too reliant on MS Office & crappy IE-only web apps to buy Macs. ...
But this.
The major sticking point for Universities, Schools, and other large organisations deploying the iPad on a large scale for instance, is the "stickiness" of MS Office. People write documents in Word and Excel and Microsoft is basically just ignoring iOS and Android in terms of Office support.
This is actually one of the big "battles" coming up that not many people have clued into yet. it will take MS a year or two (at best!) to make Windows Phone 7 Deluxe Edition with Web Extensions or whatever they are calling it now into a viable mobile OS, and that's only if it doesn't fail completely. Until that time (failure or success), they won't' be supporting the other mobile OS's at all for Office. There are a couple of third party solutions cropping up but while those may work for individuals, they are rarely deployed for organisations for a lot of obvious reasons I won't bother to get into here.
So for large-scale deployment of mobile devices in a large organisation, the choice will be either to wait for Microsoft and not deploy at all (stupid), switch the entire organisation to iWork or something similar (unlikely), or go with a third party solution (spotty, crappy, not really a "final solution.")
There is a gigantic software opportunity here for Apple in that if they actually developed iWork into a useable alternative to Office, they could take the brass ring. Sadly, they show no signs of working on this problem at all.
Despite what everyone says about Apple being a software company that makes it's own hardware, they are really the opposite of that. They develop software to the absolute minimum necessary to sell the hardware and often don't go any further than that. They have a history of developing some great piece of software (to sell some hardware product usually) and then letting it languish for years, because they have moved on or they just don't care. (iChat, iWeb, iAds, iWork, etc.)
I'd just like to point out that BGR saying something is "ridiculous" doesn't actually amount to a debunking.
"debunking" is detailed point by point analysis that turns a conclusion on it's head. The article linked to basically just says, "oh yeah, well we heard different!"
A lathe spins the part around a single axis (used to make parts round on 1 axis at a time. The machine Apple uses to make the unibody parts is a CNC mill. With a milling machine the part can move on the X and Y axis when needed. The mill can have many attachments that cut away material from the part.
There is a gigantic software opportunity here for Apple in that if they actually developed iWork into a useable alternative to Office, they could take the brass ring. Sadly, they show no signs of working on this problem at all.
I agree with what you say (including what I didn't quote). I would love to see Apple ramp up the development of iWork but I am not sure they see it as a battle worth fighting. You say its a giant software opportunity but there is no guarantee it will succeed. People don't switch easily and no matter what you say about Macs v Windows, for most people the best and easiest computer (software) is the one they know. For my needs iWork is fine but I had to make a concerted effort in order to become comfortable with it.
I think for iWork to replace Office it would need to be able to interact seamlessly with office docs, first and foremost. After that I think the Apple marketing team would need to work their magic, over a long period.
Still, if you had to guess, what do you imagine the ASP for PCs is?
I'm guessing $ 850 but that is totally pulled out of...(I'm not American; you fill it in) Based on the prices I see on the internet, the crap PC at work, the laptops friends have. Sure there are cheaper ones, but the consumer likes to gift themselves and corporate usually supplies its users with not the lowest of specs, just because the nerdy IT guys are telling Finance that they need this or that. Yep, I guess $ 850 ASP. Hope to see other people's views and guesswork.
Comments
I think Intel is afraid of ARM. Currently, iPads using ARM processors are making a dent in low end computer sales, which generally use Intel processors. Eventually ARM will be powerful enough to run desktop and notebook computers. Many think Apple will come out with an ARM based Macbook Air further taking sales from Intel.
On top of that, Windows 8 will support ARM processors. If Microsoft follows in Apple's steps and encourages hardware manufactures to use ARM processors in low end computers (a bulk of the market) Intel will really be hurting.
Why does Intel hate Apple?
Why is the word "hate" used when anyone makes a competitive move against Apple, but not when describing a competitive moved by Apple against anyone else?
Apple isn't encouraging its customers to gain up on another customer.
I don't see Intel as launching an offensive toward Apple, but a defense against ARM.
If for some reason I wanted a Windows laptop, I'd want it to be just as nice as an Apple laptop.
Windows is not crap. Why is it all or nothing with some folks. MacOS is great so any competing OS must be complete crap. That's just BS.
So get an Apple laptop and run both OS's - or if you must only run Windows, do that.
Good observation. The two are parting ways. You can see this is coming by a variety of different moves by Intel. First, Intel and Google teamed up to compete against Apple and Microsoft to buy the Nortel patents. Second, Intel is actively encouraging Windows PC makers to copy Apple's designs when Apple is a customer of Intel.
I think Intel is afraid of ARM. Currently, iPads using ARM processors are making a dent in low end computer sales, which generally use Intel processors. Eventually ARM will be powerful enough to run desktop and notebook computers. Many think Apple will come out with an ARM based Macbook Air further taking sales from Intel.
On top of that, Windows 8 will support ARM processors. If Microsoft follows in Apple's steps and encourages hardware manufactures to use ARM processors in low end computers (a bulk of the market) Intel will really be hurting.
Perhaps. Yet another platform shift from Intel to ARM would annoy developers (though it might make it easier to merge iOS and OS X). Look at the issues that dropping Rosetta support from Lion caused, and the PowerPC transition was 5 years ago. AMD might be a more immediate threat than ARM if they can start matching Intel's CPU power (their integrated GPUs are already a lot better). The success or failure of Windows on ARM remains to be seen. If it's just on tablets, it may not take off, and it has limited appeal on desktops since current Windows programs won't run on the ARM platform, either.
I'm guessing Intel doesn't want to find itself dependent upon any one manufacturer for its ULV mobile chips. Right now, Apple and Samsung are the two main companies using the 17W mobile chips (Dell and HP use primarily the 35W chips). The Ultrabooks would drive further demand for the 17W, which helps Intel pay for the research and development of Ivy Bridge and Haswell, which are designed on the premise of reducing energy consumption while increasing graphics and computing power.
Why is the word "hate" used when anyone makes a competitive move against Apple, but not when describing a competitive moved by Apple against anyone else?
Because they are all so hatable and Apple isn't?
Can you please cite references to the debunking?
http://www.bgr.com/2011/07/28/40-of-...ly-ridiculous/
...because the average price of a Mac is roughly twice as high as that of a PC:
http://gizmodo.com/5033865/study-ave...-of-average-pc ...
This part is total crap.
Stats can be fun but you have to start with good data. Gizmodo makes stuff up. All the time. They are probably the furthest from a "good source" on anything to do with computers or gadgets.
In one market segment. At this moment in time. Apple rules the $1000+ laptop market segment but doesn't offer a single product in the ~$500 segment. If you want cheap (and obviously cheap != value), Windows or Linux are your only options....
Cheap yes, at least in terms of initial purchase price which is sadly all the average idiot thinks of when buying.
Value? Not so much.
Even before Mac products started to be aggressively priced within their particular segments, it was already true that Macs were cheaper than Windows computers if you considered the total cost of ownership.
It's been the smart move to buy a Mac (even if you are a poor jerk in a trailer in Arkansas or something), for many years now and will save you money in the long run over any Windows based PC however cheap.
And, yet, this article is about how Windows systems are not going to be able to beat the Mac on price.
Amazing how so much ignorance abounds.
Reliant on Office? Perhaps you're not aware that Office has been available on Macs since the beginning.
IE-only web apps? These are actually far less of a problem than they've ever been. I can think of only one site I can't access with my Mac. And I can simply fire up Parallels to get to that site.
I agree that OS X isn't going to be dominant. Too many ignorant people like you spreading FUD.
The fact remains that in a corporate environment, they can buy PCs for $400-$500 with a monitor. And for most employees, who use nothing but email, Word, Excel and Powerpoint, it actually works fine. The Mac might be capable of so much more, but except in design departments, they wouldn't get much use anyway. And as apps move to the cloud, I think this will actually hurt Apple in the long run because there's less differentiation in browser-based software.
One can talk about total cost of ownership, productivity, etc., but when you have to buy 500 computers, executives are mainly concerned about the immediate capital costs and it's almost impossible to calculate the productivity increases because work expands to fill the time allotted to it anyway.
Not everyone can afford a Mac...
Not this.
A lot of businesses are ... too reliant on MS Office & crappy IE-only web apps to buy Macs. ...
But this.
The major sticking point for Universities, Schools, and other large organisations deploying the iPad on a large scale for instance, is the "stickiness" of MS Office. People write documents in Word and Excel and Microsoft is basically just ignoring iOS and Android in terms of Office support.
This is actually one of the big "battles" coming up that not many people have clued into yet. it will take MS a year or two (at best!) to make Windows Phone 7 Deluxe Edition with Web Extensions or whatever they are calling it now into a viable mobile OS, and that's only if it doesn't fail completely. Until that time (failure or success), they won't' be supporting the other mobile OS's at all for Office. There are a couple of third party solutions cropping up but while those may work for individuals, they are rarely deployed for organisations for a lot of obvious reasons I won't bother to get into here.
So for large-scale deployment of mobile devices in a large organisation, the choice will be either to wait for Microsoft and not deploy at all (stupid), switch the entire organisation to iWork or something similar (unlikely), or go with a third party solution (spotty, crappy, not really a "final solution.")
There is a gigantic software opportunity here for Apple in that if they actually developed iWork into a useable alternative to Office, they could take the brass ring. Sadly, they show no signs of working on this problem at all.
Despite what everyone says about Apple being a software company that makes it's own hardware, they are really the opposite of that. They develop software to the absolute minimum necessary to sell the hardware and often don't go any further than that. They have a history of developing some great piece of software (to sell some hardware product usually) and then letting it languish for years, because they have moved on or they just don't care. (iChat, iWeb, iAds, iWork, etc.)
http://www.bgr.com/2011/07/28/40-of-...ly-ridiculous/
I'd just like to point out that BGR saying something is "ridiculous" doesn't actually amount to a debunking.
"debunking" is detailed point by point analysis that turns a conclusion on it's head. The article linked to basically just says, "oh yeah, well we heard different!"
Not debunking.
There is a gigantic software opportunity here for Apple in that if they actually developed iWork into a useable alternative to Office, they could take the brass ring. Sadly, they show no signs of working on this problem at all.
I agree with what you say (including what I didn't quote). I would love to see Apple ramp up the development of iWork but I am not sure they see it as a battle worth fighting. You say its a giant software opportunity but there is no guarantee it will succeed. People don't switch easily and no matter what you say about Macs v Windows, for most people the best and easiest computer (software) is the one they know. For my needs iWork is fine but I had to make a concerted effort in order to become comfortable with it.
I think for iWork to replace Office it would need to be able to interact seamlessly with office docs, first and foremost. After that I think the Apple marketing team would need to work their magic, over a long period.
Still, if you had to guess, what do you imagine the ASP for PCs is?
I'm guessing $ 850 but that is totally pulled out of...(I'm not American; you fill it in) Based on the prices I see on the internet, the crap PC at work, the laptops friends have. Sure there are cheaper ones, but the consumer likes to gift themselves and corporate usually supplies its users with not the lowest of specs, just because the nerdy IT guys are telling Finance that they need this or that. Yep, I guess $ 850 ASP. Hope to see other people's views and guesswork.