Completely no but i can see them offering an iOS based device that s. cross between an iPad and a laptop.
They just released the new Mac Pro and the types of applications that professionals use are written for X86. Those major applications from Adobe and Autodesk or even Apple Pro apps take years to rewrite for a different architecture.
That isnt accurate at all, thoug it is very dependent upon the code base. For many developers, using good practces, it is a matter of throwing a switch and having XCode target a new archtecture. in the case of iOS we are effecitvley already doing that. build an app to run on Apples simulators and it is essentiallynrunning i86 code.
If Apple was going to make a Mac that used ARM, it would likely be a very low end notebook that was running some flavor of iOS. I really don't see them killing off their professional market.
Most certainly! An iOS based machine solves the consumer confusion issue cleanly. As we are seeing with iOS 8, iOS can eqsily be extended to offer more capability vs a "desktop OS or cell phone OS". The problem here is that such a machine isnt likely to appeal to someone like me who really needs a complete OS. however for many users a more powerful iPad would be welcomed.
That isnt accurate at all, thoug it is very dependent upon the code base. For many developers, using good practces, it is a matter of throwing a switch and having XCode target a new archtecture. in the case of iOS we are effecitvley already doing that. build an app to run on Apples simulators and it is essentiallynrunning i86 code.
I doubt those major titles are using Xcode which is why I mentioned it. They probably have tons of legacy C++ pre complied blocks which may ultimately get imported into Xcode but it is not going to be like flipping a switch. Most of those titles are built in such a way as to facilitate them being ported cross platform to Windows/Mac.
How about reducing the price of *all* of these overdue-for-a-refresh models rather than just introduce a single cheaper model that appeals to very few of us on this forum?
Maybe because "us on this forum" represents an almost infinitesimal fraction of Apple's customer base?
Apple sells way more notebooks than desktop computers, and a huge percentage of the MacBooks are Airs. That means many Mac users are quite content with the wimpiest Mac in Apple's lineup.
My guess is that Mac Pros are about 2% of Apple's total Mac unit sales. It's not surprising that many tech rumor forum readers favor high-performance machines, however it is completely ludicrous to ignore the reality of Apple's primary user demographic.
Did you miss the point of this story? The problem is Intel's, likely the die shrink. What do you want Apple to do?
Same thing they did with the MBA's woulda' worked better for me (and I'll wager for volume and net, if not margin %) - slight speed bump, $100 decrease across the models, and the new one - a the magic under a grand Mac at $999.... ...but then I dunno the what the bill of lading adds up to. And bet few of you calling for this do either.
Intel CEO seems pretty confident that Broadwell will ship Q4.
Well, so far this year from Intel - with this being at least the second release date pushback - it's "there goes Moore's law"....
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWhiteFalcon
So we're sort of in a similar situation that Apple was in in the first half of the last decade. A partner who can't get new parts out fast enough.
At the very least the Mini could get a bump to Haswell...this current model is the longest-lasting in the Mini's history. It's dated.
Except this time the Win makers are caught in the same bottleneck, so no relative disadvantage....
...on the other hand, by the time the A9 or 10 roll out, they could well be used in "other products" that previously would've had "Intel Inside" - not the whole line I'd guess and one thing to go would be running Windows natively.
But with their whole Win 8 fiasco - "It's a PC OS! (Except with no native productivity apps in its new mode) "It's a tablet OS!" (Except it's all focused on running a stub of old Windows Office and OEM's abandoned it like a hot rock. And it's being merged with the phone OS now.) "It's a phone OS with the same UI!" (Except the API's for all three of these are different) "It's an espresso maker!" - and for other reasons, with the maturity of the Mac ecosystem and web/cloud apps independent of any OS, being able to run Windows is less and less important for most people and many companies.
But I digress....
Bottom line, closing down Bootcamp for at least some definitely attractively priced and nicely functional machines one can see being released, certainly by 2016 if not '15, is well within the realm of possibility.... ...certainly a differentiator and puts more of their destiny in their own hands, which is always leverage...
...Could also be the move that pushes Intel into the fab for other companies business - and they have a history now of working at least fairly well with Apple, so could even be good for both families.
Apple's rumored MacBook Air with Retina display would be a prime candidate for Intel's more efficient Broadwell chips. The notebook is rumored to pack a high-resolution panel into an all-new 12-inch design that would be offered alongside the current 11- and 13-inch MacBook Airs with standard resolution screens.
Um, no. Apple's not going to offer three sets of MacBook Airs (11", 12" 13"), alongside two sets of 13" MacBook Pros.
Not unless they've learned nothing from the bad old days of Amelio.
How about reducing the price of *all* of these overdue-for-a-refresh models rather than just introduce a single cheaper model that appeals to very few of us on this forum?
Maybe because "us on this forum" represents an almost infinitesimal fraction of Apple's customer base?
The 'infinitesimal fraction' of us here is infinitely higher than zero.
What you mean to say is that there are one or two Apple users who don’t frequent AI.
1.4 GHz chip and they couldn't get the price down to $999? I have no problems with slower chips, I happily use a MacBook Air when not sitting at my iMac, but it seems hard to justify getting an iMac at half the speed for only $200 savings. At $999 I'd be pretty enthusiastic about it, at $1,099 it seems DOA.
Comments
Most certainly! An iOS based machine solves the consumer confusion issue cleanly. As we are seeing with iOS 8, iOS can eqsily be extended to offer more capability vs a "desktop OS or cell phone OS". The problem here is that such a machine isnt likely to appeal to someone like me who really needs a complete OS. however for many users a more powerful iPad would be welcomed.
I doubt those major titles are using Xcode which is why I mentioned it. They probably have tons of legacy C++ pre complied blocks which may ultimately get imported into Xcode but it is not going to be like flipping a switch. Most of those titles are built in such a way as to facilitate them being ported cross platform to Windows/Mac.
How about reducing the price of *all* of these overdue-for-a-refresh models rather than just introduce a single cheaper model that appeals to very few of us on this forum?
Maybe because "us on this forum" represents an almost infinitesimal fraction of Apple's customer base?
Correct.
Apple sells way more notebooks than desktop computers, and a huge percentage of the MacBooks are Airs. That means many Mac users are quite content with the wimpiest Mac in Apple's lineup.
My guess is that Mac Pros are about 2% of Apple's total Mac unit sales. It's not surprising that many tech rumor forum readers favor high-performance machines, however it is completely ludicrous to ignore the reality of Apple's primary user demographic.
Did you miss the point of this story? The problem is Intel's, likely the die shrink. What do you want Apple to do?
Same thing they did with the MBA's woulda' worked better for me (and I'll wager for volume and net, if not margin %) - slight speed bump, $100 decrease across the models, and the new one - a the magic under a grand Mac at $999.... ...but then I dunno the what the bill of lading adds up to. And bet few of you calling for this do either.
Quote:http://www.macrumors.com/2014/05/19/intel-broadwell-holiday-season/
Intel CEO seems pretty confident that Broadwell will ship Q4.
Well, so far this year from Intel - with this being at least the second release date pushback - it's "there goes Moore's law"....
So we're sort of in a similar situation that Apple was in in the first half of the last decade. A partner who can't get new parts out fast enough.
At the very least the Mini could get a bump to Haswell...this current model is the longest-lasting in the Mini's history. It's dated.
Except this time the Win makers are caught in the same bottleneck, so no relative disadvantage....
...on the other hand, by the time the A9 or 10 roll out, they could well be used in "other products" that previously would've had "Intel Inside" - not the whole line I'd guess and one thing to go would be running Windows natively.
But with their whole Win 8 fiasco - "It's a PC OS! (Except with no native productivity apps in its new mode) "It's a tablet OS!" (Except it's all focused on running a stub of old Windows Office and OEM's abandoned it like a hot rock. And it's being merged with the phone OS now.) "It's a phone OS with the same UI!" (Except the API's for all three of these are different) "It's an espresso maker!" - and for other reasons, with the maturity of the Mac ecosystem and web/cloud apps independent of any OS, being able to run Windows is less and less important for most people and many companies.
But I digress....
Bottom line, closing down Bootcamp for at least some definitely attractively priced and nicely functional machines one can see being released, certainly by 2016 if not '15, is well within the realm of possibility.... ...certainly a differentiator and puts more of their destiny in their own hands, which is always leverage...
...Could also be the move that pushes Intel into the fab for other companies business - and they have a history now of working at least fairly well with Apple, so could even be good for both families.
Um, no. Apple's not going to offer three sets of MacBook Airs (11", 12" 13"), alongside two sets of 13" MacBook Pros.
Not unless they've learned nothing from the bad old days of Amelio.
The 'infinitesimal fraction' of us here is infinitely higher than zero.
What you mean to say is that there are one or two Apple users who don’t frequent AI.
I really, really need to upgrade my iMac (2009). So apparently the time is not now?
Will we see any refresh in the fall? I don't know how much longer I can wait. Good grief, Apple.
It’s Apple’s fault Intel hasn’t finished developing anticipated CPU upgrades.
Move on from Intel.
…because that’s so easy to accomplish and no one at Apple ever considered this.