I have been a customer, reseller, co-developer, supplier, developer, observer and shareholder of Apple spanning almost 36 years – I think I understand how Apple works.
I don't think you do. Apple doesn't participate in evey market. Hence no netbook, no dumb phone, no cheap junk smartphone. Is there really a market between a iPad and a MBA? People who need the power of OS X won't settle for under powered chip.
I have been a customer, reseller, co-developer, supplier, developer, observer and shareholder of Apple spanning almost 36 years – I think I understand how Apple works.
I don't think you do. Apple doesn't participate in evey market. Hence no netbook, no dumb phone, no cheap junk smartphone. Is there really a market between a iPad and a MBA? People who need the power of OS X won't settle for under powered chip.
I believe there is a market between theI MBA and a ChromeBook, and junk tablets.
I don't think you do. Apple doesn't participate in evey market. Hence no netbook, no dumb phone, no cheap junk smartphone. Is there really a market between a iPad and a MBA? People who need the power of OS X won't settle for under powered chip.
Then why is the MBA so popular with it's ULTRA-LOW voltage CPU. Note that an Apple A-series chip in a 12" notebook would not be any slower than a MBA that came out just a couple years ago and probably do a lot of things much, much faster.
And I doubt Meneer Applebaum is talking about a cheap notebook. I'm certainly not! I think we're both on the page of a lower-cost notebook that has plenty of performance for the average, casual user that needs something other than their iPad or iPhone from time-to-time. I wouldn't expect this to be any less than what the average WinPC sells for, which I think is about $700-750, which is pretty much doable in and of itself when you consider the cost of just using that Intel CULV SFF CPU and chipset. Add in the cost savings from getting to use a smaller battery with a lot more battery life and smaller chassis, smaller PSU, smaller box, cheaper shipping, more storage on shelves, etc. and Apple can not only increase their PC sale reach but also start to monopolize the $800 and $900 ranges, not just the $1000 and up range of the consumer PC market. That's a big deal!
I don't think you do. Apple doesn't participate in evey market. Hence no netbook, no dumb phone, no cheap junk smartphone. Is there really a market between a iPad and a MBA? People who need the power of OS X won't settle for under powered chip.
Then why is the MBA so popular with it's ULTRA-LOW voltage CPU. Note that an Apple A-series chip in a 12" notebook would not be any slower than a MBA that came out just a couple years ago and probably do a lot of things much, much faster.
And I doubt Meneer Applebaum is talking about a cheap notebook. I'm certainly not! I think we're both on the page of a lower-cost notebook that has plenty of performance for the average, casual user that needs something other than their iPad or iPhone from time-to-time. I wouldn't expect this to be any less than what the average WinPC sells for, which I think is about $700-750, which is pretty much doable in and of itself when you consider the cost of just using that Intel CULV SFF CPU and chipset. Add in the cost savings from getting to use a smaller battery with a lot more battery life and smaller chassis, smaller PSU, smaller box, cheaper shipping, more storage on shelves, etc. and Apple can not only increase their PC sale reach but also start to monopolize the $800 and $900 ranges, not just the $1000 and up range of the consumer PC market. That's a big deal!
I've been ruminating on this for hours ...
I think that this a strategic breakthrough opportunity for Apple -- to introduce the billions of PC users and millions of lower-end tablet users to the Apple way;
Remember the days running up to the original iPad announcement in 2010, The specs of the iPad were pretty well known -- and the so-called experts were predicting a price point of $1,000-$1,100.
Apple strutted their stuff, highlighting the iPad capabilities and advantages ... then, they dropped the bomb -- a starting price of $499 ...
Every competitor went back to the drawing boards.
I believe that the Apple technology exists to pull off another strategic coup!
How about a laptop running OSX and the OSX free/iCloud apps starting at $499 (top end $799),
Capable of running all major OSX apps from MS Office to Adobe Photoshop.
A full-fledged member of the Apple ecosystem.
Opportunities like this rarely occur -- Apple can disrupt the entire mid-lower mobile (and some desktop) market!
Did you take into account performance per Watt and the overhead reduction Monsieur Applebaum mentions? Even with the A7 at 1.3GHz it's doing very well.
I definitely think Apple could squeeze better performance per dollar and per watt out of ARM but I think it would have to be a significant amount for it to be worth the headache of implementing some binary translation for compatibility with existing software and getting iOS software to work properly. Remember, iOS software isn't designed to be scalable, isn't designed to use external displays the same way, some software is designed with multiple inputs in mind, some for portrait-only so applying it to a laptop with a single input and a different, landscape-only resolution is troublesome.
So they cut off over $200 from the build costs, end up with a $799 Air, performance is around the level of the Core 2 Duo Airs and they can make it passively cooled with increased battery life. It's not going to be a powerhouse by any stretch of the imagination but it'll have a PCIe SSD, 4GB RAM and basic apps like the browser, Office apps, email will run really smoothly. The margins would be the same but hits an extra 16-25% of laptop buyers.
I definitely think Apple could squeeze better performance per dollar and per watt out of ARM but I think it would have to be a significant amount for it to be worth the headache of implementing some binary translation for compatibility with existing software and getting iOS software to work properly.
Do you mean something to get OSX apps to run on ARM hardware? That could be a very difficult project given the different machine instruction sets. ARM tends to rely on simpler design in general. They didn't even have hardware level branch prediction until a few years ago, many years after intel. That example came to mind due to that recent lawsuit article from some academic institution.
I definitely think Apple could squeeze better performance per dollar and per watt out of ARM but I think it would have to be a significant amount for it to be worth the headache of implementing some binary translation for compatibility with existing software and getting iOS software to work properly.
Do you mean something to get OSX apps to run on ARM hardware? That could be a very difficult project given the different machine instruction sets. ARM tends to rely on simpler design in general. They didn't even have hardware level branch prediction until a few years ago, many years after intel. That example came to mind due to that recent lawsuit article from some academic institution.
I suspect that an Apple device at these price points ($499-$799) would include:
keyboard and touchpad
12 inch display
USB 3/2
HDMI
HD card I/O not SSD storage
64-bit Ax CPU/GPU
4-8 GB RAM
128-256 GB SSD
WiFi 11ac
Bluetoooth 4.1
Front camera 5 mp
optional cell radios
I would be greatly surprised if Apple doesn't already have Mac OSX running on ARM with the following goals:
provide the same APIs and Frameworks available on current Mac OSX (intel) on OSX ARM -- to the Mac developer it looks the same
provide source-level XCode compatibility -- a Mac OSX app is recompiled to run on OSX ARM
provide guidelines to aid developers in porting their apps -- UI, I/O, and performance differences, debugging and tuning techniques
provide the full suite of standard Mac OSX apps on OSX ARM: iWork, iLife, iTunes, GarageBand, etc.
provide the Mac OSX UI on OSX ARM
In addition, I suspect that Apple would have the following goals for iOS apps* running on OSX ARM:
provide the same APIs and Frameworks available on current iOS on OSX ARM -- to the iOS developer it looks the same
provide source-level XCode compatibility -- an iOS app is recompiled to run on OSX ARM
provide guidelines to aid developers in porting their apps -- UI, I/O, and performance differences, debugging and tuning techniques
provide the option to run any iOS app in a separate window on OSX ARM -- looks and acts like a Mac running an iOS app **
provide the option to run iOS apps full-screen, all sharing a single window (as in iOS) in OSX ARM - looks and acts ike an iPad
* iOS apps requiring special hardware (gyroscope, compass, etc.) may not be supported on OSX ARM
** The current iOS simulator running on Mac OSX currently runs most iOS apps (simulates ARM on Intel) -- this should be better with less overhead on OSX ARM by eliminating the CPU/GPU simulation.
Based on the above speculation, I don't think there would be any need for any runtime simulation/emulation nor any binary translation.
It probably is still a little too early for this transition but we're close. 2 years and iOS X might be the answer?
A10 (AX) processor with iOS X
I kinda' agree ...
The thing that makes me think that there is something going on is that last September Apple introduced the A7 a "desktop class chip".
There is no need for this horsepower on the current iPads or iPhones -- and it is probably overkill the next iDevices, too ..
It is very unApple to do something like this, and I assume that Apple is doing something other than playing a spec war.
So, 7 months in, most iOS apps have been recompiled to [somewhat] exploit a "desktop class chip". But, where is the "desktop computer" to run these on -- something with more RAM, SSD, I/O...
Does it make more sense to beef up the iDevices or downscale the Mac device? Short term? Long term?
So, 7 months in, most iOS apps have been recompiled to [somewhat] exploit a "desktop class chip". But, where is the "desktop computer" to run these on -- something with more RAM, SSD, I/O...
Does it make more sense to beef up the iDevices or downscale the Mac device? Short term? Long term?
Well... there's a 12.9" iPad on the horizon (apparently) so it sounds like there's still a huge focus on iOS hardware.
There must be lessons to learn from both iOS and OS X and I hope Apple are following the threads & using those lessons to imagine entirely new products. Products that take the best elements of traditional desktops/laptops combined with the sensor laden, ultra efficient mobile products.
I admit I do have a fondness for another seemingly forgotten about concept of a 27" touchscreen Mac. A touchscreen that is angled/raised slightly like a trackpad or drawing board so you have the great MultiTouch gestures but expanded on with powerful apps such as Final Cut thrown in to the mix. A bit like Microsoft Surface done right (the same way Apple made the tablet work, after MS struggled for so long).
* iOS apps requiring special hardware (gyroscope, compass, etc.) may not be supported on OSX ARM
** The current iOS simulator running on Mac OSX currently runs most iOS apps (simulates ARM on Intel) -- this should be better with less overhead on OSX ARM by eliminating the CPU/GPU simulation.
Well it's not just an issue of overhead. There is the issue of accuracy in performance. If it was the same architecture and instruction set, it might be possible to run the simulator as a real VM rather than something running on top of the OS. At least that seems logical.
Comments
I don't think you do. Apple doesn't participate in evey market. Hence no netbook, no dumb phone, no cheap junk smartphone. Is there really a market between a iPad and a MBA? People who need the power of OS X won't settle for under powered chip.
I believe there is a market between theI MBA and a ChromeBook, and junk tablets.
Then why is the MBA so popular with it's ULTRA-LOW voltage CPU. Note that an Apple A-series chip in a 12" notebook would not be any slower than a MBA that came out just a couple years ago and probably do a lot of things much, much faster.
And I doubt Meneer Applebaum is talking about a cheap notebook. I'm certainly not! I think we're both on the page of a lower-cost notebook that has plenty of performance for the average, casual user that needs something other than their iPad or iPhone from time-to-time. I wouldn't expect this to be any less than what the average WinPC sells for, which I think is about $700-750, which is pretty much doable in and of itself when you consider the cost of just using that Intel CULV SFF CPU and chipset. Add in the cost savings from getting to use a smaller battery with a lot more battery life and smaller chassis, smaller PSU, smaller box, cheaper shipping, more storage on shelves, etc. and Apple can not only increase their PC sale reach but also start to monopolize the $800 and $900 ranges, not just the $1000 and up range of the consumer PC market. That's a big deal!
I've been ruminating on this for hours ...
I think that this a strategic breakthrough opportunity for Apple -- to introduce the billions of PC users and millions of lower-end tablet users to the Apple way;
Remember the days running up to the original iPad announcement in 2010, The specs of the iPad were pretty well known -- and the so-called experts were predicting a price point of $1,000-$1,100.
Apple strutted their stuff, highlighting the iPad capabilities and advantages ... then, they dropped the bomb -- a starting price of $499 ...
Every competitor went back to the drawing boards.
I believe that the Apple technology exists to pull off another strategic coup!
How about a laptop running OSX and the OSX free/iCloud apps starting at $499 (top end $799),
Capable of running all major OSX apps from MS Office to Adobe Photoshop.
A full-fledged member of the Apple ecosystem.
Opportunities like this rarely occur -- Apple can disrupt the entire mid-lower mobile (and some desktop) market!
And, Afrikans aside -- off to bed!
I definitely think Apple could squeeze better performance per dollar and per watt out of ARM but I think it would have to be a significant amount for it to be worth the headache of implementing some binary translation for compatibility with existing software and getting iOS software to work properly. Remember, iOS software isn't designed to be scalable, isn't designed to use external displays the same way, some software is designed with multiple inputs in mind, some for portrait-only so applying it to a laptop with a single input and a different, landscape-only resolution is troublesome.
Look at this CPU:
http://ark.intel.com/products/79053/Intel-Celeron-Processor-N2920-2M-Cache-up-to-2_00-GHz
$107 (7.5W) vs the $315 (15W) CPU they use now:
http://ark.intel.com/products/75028/
The performance of the one they use now is roughly double the Celeron:
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i5-4250U+@+1.30GHz
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Celeron+N2920+@+1.86GHz&id=2134
So they cut off over $200 from the build costs, end up with a $799 Air, performance is around the level of the Core 2 Duo Airs and they can make it passively cooled with increased battery life. It's not going to be a powerhouse by any stretch of the imagination but it'll have a PCIe SSD, 4GB RAM and basic apps like the browser, Office apps, email will run really smoothly. The margins would be the same but hits an extra 16-25% of laptop buyers.
I definitely think Apple could squeeze better performance per dollar and per watt out of ARM but I think it would have to be a significant amount for it to be worth the headache of implementing some binary translation for compatibility with existing software and getting iOS software to work properly.
Do you mean something to get OSX apps to run on ARM hardware? That could be a very difficult project given the different machine instruction sets. ARM tends to rely on simpler design in general. They didn't even have hardware level branch prediction until a few years ago, many years after intel. That example came to mind due to that recent lawsuit article from some academic institution.
A10 (AX) processor with iOS X
I suspect that an Apple device at these price points ($499-$799) would include:
I would be greatly surprised if Apple doesn't already have Mac OSX running on ARM with the following goals:
In addition, I suspect that Apple would have the following goals for iOS apps* running on OSX ARM:
* iOS apps requiring special hardware (gyroscope, compass, etc.) may not be supported on OSX ARM
** The current iOS simulator running on Mac OSX currently runs most iOS apps (simulates ARM on Intel) -- this should be better with less overhead on OSX ARM by eliminating the CPU/GPU simulation.
Based on the above speculation, I don't think there would be any need for any runtime simulation/emulation nor any binary translation.
I kinda' agree ...
The thing that makes me think that there is something going on is that last September Apple introduced the A7 a "desktop class chip".
There is no need for this horsepower on the current iPads or iPhones -- and it is probably overkill the next iDevices, too ..
It is very unApple to do something like this, and I assume that Apple is doing something other than playing a spec war.
So, 7 months in, most iOS apps have been recompiled to [somewhat] exploit a "desktop class chip". But, where is the "desktop computer" to run these on -- something with more RAM, SSD, I/O...
Does it make more sense to beef up the iDevices or downscale the Mac device? Short term? Long term?
So, 7 months in, most iOS apps have been recompiled to [somewhat] exploit a "desktop class chip". But, where is the "desktop computer" to run these on -- something with more RAM, SSD, I/O...
Does it make more sense to beef up the iDevices or downscale the Mac device? Short term? Long term?
Well... there's a 12.9" iPad on the horizon (apparently) so it sounds like there's still a huge focus on iOS hardware.
There must be lessons to learn from both iOS and OS X and I hope Apple are following the threads & using those lessons to imagine entirely new products. Products that take the best elements of traditional desktops/laptops combined with the sensor laden, ultra efficient mobile products.
I admit I do have a fondness for another seemingly forgotten about concept of a 27" touchscreen Mac. A touchscreen that is angled/raised slightly like a trackpad or drawing board so you have the great MultiTouch gestures but expanded on with powerful apps such as Final Cut thrown in to the mix. A bit like Microsoft Surface done right (the same way Apple made the tablet work, after MS struggled for so long).
Really???
Our iPad2 with BT keyboard serves our laptop needs just fine.
For more serious Mac'n it's a new $599 mini, with oldies 22" LCD, KB and mouse.
What's the problem with this?
.
* iOS apps requiring special hardware (gyroscope, compass, etc.) may not be supported on OSX ARM
** The current iOS simulator running on Mac OSX currently runs most iOS apps (simulates ARM on Intel) -- this should be better with less overhead on OSX ARM by eliminating the CPU/GPU simulation.
Well it's not just an issue of overhead. There is the issue of accuracy in performance. If it was the same architecture and instruction set, it might be possible to run the simulator as a real VM rather than something running on top of the OS. At least that seems logical.
Hahaha lol !?! Mmmm
Well actually . Well it might keep my children of my new Mac Pro