Yup, Intel has performed so poorly that Apple has given up with them in the Macbook Air, Macbook Pro , Mac Pro, iMac 5k, and the Mac mini
.. Oh wait EVERY MAC USES INTEL
For how long though ...
It's only a matter of time before Intel is on the scrap heap.
It's articles like this which make me have to pinch myself every now and then to make sure I am not dreaming. What bizarro world is this where the competition has problems even giving their tablets away at cost, while Apple has no problems selling theirs at a healthy profit? (????)?
Intel will close the gap eventually. Chip design is not magic and they are not stupid. And while they're playing catch up, they have to keep an x86 ecosystem alive in that space, hence the subsidies.
No, chip design isn't magic; but getting an ancient CISC architecture like x86 running efficiently is. CISC CPUs are much more complex than RISC (ARM/PPC/Apple) ones, since they have to handle a much larger variety of assembler instructions. In a similar fashion to how PPC was faster and more efficient than x86 back in the mid to late 1990s, ARM's architecture is much simpler, more efficient and per CPU cycle, it does more work. It was designed for efficiency from the start, x86 wasn't.
Instead of being stuck using an ancient architecture with modern chip fabrication techniques, Intel would have done much better, in fact would likely be leading, if they created a new architecture for mobile using their advanced manufacturing and design tech. The only reason Intel stays with x86 is for backward compatibility, which is completely unnecessary for mobile: no mobile phones run Windows.
And yet Intel x86 is a must for true compatibility.
Why do people assume the average consumer wants compatibility? They want a few things, that's it. As long as their stupid Chrome web browser and Office works, they won't complain. Given that Microsoft has a full-blown desktop-class version of Office for ARM that Satya Nadella would no doubt love to license to Apple (gotta recoup the cost somehow) that takes care of that. A modest x64 compatibility layer would handle the rest. You wouldn't be emulating photoshop and other resource pigs, just the simple stuff. Like Rosetta.
As for the article, the thing that shows just how dumb Intel is is that they HAD a full architectural license to develop ARM chips, and they had the groundbreaking (for its day) StrongARM chip from DEC. And then they dabbled a bit with it before selling it. If they'd stuck around and kept pushing that tech, they'd be in a much better place today.
And I'm so glad that that one Apple engineer (don't recall who) convinced Jobs that Atom would be a terrible idea for the iPad. The iPad would be so far behind today, it wouldn't even be 64-bit.
Consumers don't mind paying more for an Apple tablet because they're comparing the cost to that of a laptop rather than to cheap tablets. And they're drawn to iPads, in part, because Apple supports them longer with iOS upgrades than Android makers do. People have enough sense to see a more long-lived product as the better investment.
That's why the lack of support for iOS's Continuity features on the iPad 3 was such a stupid move, since its hardware can handle those features. It suggests that Apple has begun to play the same contrived obsolesce game that other tablet makers play. That's not good long-term.
And yet Intel x86 is a must for true compatibility.
With what, Windows? Most peoples' needs to have Windows compatibility on a Mac are over these days. I have long suggested that if Apple were to move its Mac lines to non Intel and use Apple CPU/GPU technology with a new version of OS X all Apple needs to do is offer a BTO Intel language card as an option the same way we did with the Apple ][e. These days it could probably be a dongle.
It's articles like this which make me have to pinch myself every now and then to make sure I am not dreaming. What bizarro world is this where the competition has problems even giving their tablets away at cost, while Apple has no problems selling theirs at a healthy profit? (????)?
Bizarro world indeed in which the competition remains content and even dedicated to cheating and stealing like teenagers to "graduate" while refusing to learn anything from Apple's example, obstinately oblivious to the laws of nature which dictate, "No free lunch!"
I think you will find that Apple asked Intel to Quote on the iPhone/iPad business but that Intel declined, thought they wouldn't make any money on it :-
:no::no:
With what, Windows? Most peoples' needs to have Windows compatibility on a Mac are over these days. I have long suggested that if Apple were to move its Mac lines to non Intel and use Apple CPU/GPU technology with a new version of OS X all it need to is offer a BTO Intel language card as an option the same way we did with the Apple ][e. These days it could probably be a dongle.
Actually, you could probably get away with a small dongle, using Thunderbolt 3. The issue would be keeping Thunderbolt while losing Intel everywhere else.
Consumers don't mind paying more for an Apple tablet because they're comparing the cost to that of a laptop rather than to cheap tablets. And they're drawn to iPads, in part, because Apple supports them longer with iOS upgrades than Android makers do. People have enough sense to see a more long-lived product as the better investment.
That's why the lack of support for iOS's Continuity features on the iPad 3 was such a stupid move, since its hardware can handle those features. It suggests that Apple has begun to play the same contrived obsolesce game that other tablet makers play. That's not good long-term.
I am not an engineer but isn't the limitation Bluetooth? If it is then at some point new software innovation requires new hardware technology and it would not make sense to hold back any new technology because at some point in the past older products predated that hardware. If I am wrong and it is simply some arbitrary decision on Apple's part to somehow prevent the technology from working on certain models through software intervention then I'd agree with you. There are precedents for this, witness the lack of Airplay on MBPs from 2010 yet they are quite capable of using Air Parrot.
Actually, you could probably get away with a small dongle, using Thunderbolt 3. The issue would be keeping Thunderbolt while losing Intel everywhere else.
That was exactly what I was thinking. If the TB dongle had an out port you wouldn't lose a port.
BTW I didn't mean those no no no emoticons there ... not sure how they got in my post.
I am not an engineer but isn't the limitation Bluetooth? If it is then at some point new software innovation requires new hardware technology and it would not make sense to hold back any new technology because at some point in the past older products predated that hardware. If I am wrong and it is simply some arbitrary decision on Apple's part to somehow prevent the technology from working on certain models through software intervention then I'd agree with you. There are precedents for this, witness the lack of Airplay on MBPs from 2010 yet they are quite capable of using Air Parrot.
AirPlay requires the CPU to have IntelInsider DRM, that's why the restriction there. As for the iPad 3, it's probably a performance issue. It really isn't any faster than the iPad 2. Actually, I've wondered if the iPad 3 will get the axe at the same time as the iPad 2 and first gen Mini.
Sometimes big companies just don't get it! For Intel read IBM/Microsoft etc.
Of those you mention, I am actually finding myself a lot warmer and rooting for IBM. I have long got over IBMs outright attack on Apple in the early 1980's with the removal of VT emulation support from main frames and minis. IBM was punished ironically by Microsoft when they stabbed IBM in the back with the clones. I am very hopeful the iBM-Apple partnership could be huge going forward and IBM have no reason to stab Apple in the back. In fact I even have hope as well as iOS that partnership may also benefit OS X in the future.
AirPlay requires the CPU to have IntelInsider DRM, that's why the restriction there. As for the iPad 3, it's probably a performance issue. It really isn't any faster than the iPad 2. Actually, I've wondered if the iPad 3 will get the axe at the same time as the iPad 2 and first gen Mini.
Oh thanks, so it wasn't performance issues, simply DRM ... didn't know that. No wonder Air Parrot works well. Actually I had noticed it works with many videos my other Apple devices don't ... DRM hadn't dawned on me!
Is the iPad Air OK with continuity? We have two of those as well as several 3's and a 2. I quite honestly don't keep up with iOS tech that much other than buying them for family.
Oh thanks, so it wasn't performance issues, simply DRM ... didn't know that. No wonder Air Parrot works well. Actually I had noticed it works with many videos my other Apple devices don't ... DRM hadn't dawned on me!
Is the iPad Air OK with continuity? We have two of those as well as several 3's and a 2. I quite honestly don't keep up with iOS tech that much other than buying them for family.
Seems to work fine, I hardly ever use it as I don't have a Mac that has even a remote chance at running it. My Mac Pro is way too old.
If those I am actually finding myself a lot warmer and rooting for IBM. I have long got over IBMs outright attack on Apple in the early 1980's with the removal of VT emulation support from main frames and minis. IBM was punished ironically by Microsoft when they stabbed IBM in the back with the clones. I am very hopeful the iBM-Apple partnership could be huge going forward and IBM have no reason to stab Apple in the back. In fact I even have hope as well as iOS that partnership may also benefit OS X in the future.
I don't think IBM will abandon Apple, they have no one else to turn to. No one else sells the hardware for IBM's software. You could argue Microsoft might be an alternative, but the Surface Pro 3 is a bit pricy for most enterprises, as well as being rather large...I suspect they're going to sell as many if not more iPad Mini's to enterprises than Airs.
You know, the more I think of the continued death of the WinTel duopoly, I keep thinking of Tim and his comment the other day "you're only relevant if your customers love you." I think that applies to more than just the retail sector.
I don't think most people have a love for Microsoft or Intel. Then again, people rarely have a love for their long-time abusers.
Tim once pointed out in an interview that when Compaq's customers complained, they bought a Dell the next time. When Apple's customers complain, they buy another Apple product the next time. He also said his first day of work, he had to cross a picket line of Newton fans protesting Jobs's cancellation of the platform. A lot of those guys stuck with Apple even after that.
Comments
For how long though ...
It's only a matter of time before Intel is on the scrap heap.
Karma.
No, chip design isn't magic; but getting an ancient CISC architecture like x86 running efficiently is. CISC CPUs are much more complex than RISC (ARM/PPC/Apple) ones, since they have to handle a much larger variety of assembler instructions. In a similar fashion to how PPC was faster and more efficient than x86 back in the mid to late 1990s, ARM's architecture is much simpler, more efficient and per CPU cycle, it does more work. It was designed for efficiency from the start, x86 wasn't.
Instead of being stuck using an ancient architecture with modern chip fabrication techniques, Intel would have done much better, in fact would likely be leading, if they created a new architecture for mobile using their advanced manufacturing and design tech. The only reason Intel stays with x86 is for backward compatibility, which is completely unnecessary for mobile: no mobile phones run Windows.
Why do people assume the average consumer wants compatibility? They want a few things, that's it. As long as their stupid Chrome web browser and Office works, they won't complain. Given that Microsoft has a full-blown desktop-class version of Office for ARM that Satya Nadella would no doubt love to license to Apple (gotta recoup the cost somehow) that takes care of that. A modest x64 compatibility layer would handle the rest. You wouldn't be emulating photoshop and other resource pigs, just the simple stuff. Like Rosetta.
As for the article, the thing that shows just how dumb Intel is is that they HAD a full architectural license to develop ARM chips, and they had the groundbreaking (for its day) StrongARM chip from DEC. And then they dabbled a bit with it before selling it. If they'd stuck around and kept pushing that tech, they'd be in a much better place today.
And I'm so glad that that one Apple engineer (don't recall who) convinced Jobs that Atom would be a terrible idea for the iPad. The iPad would be so far behind today, it wouldn't even be 64-bit.
That's why the lack of support for iOS's Continuity features on the iPad 3 was such a stupid move, since its hardware can handle those features. It suggests that Apple has begun to play the same contrived obsolesce game that other tablet makers play. That's not good long-term.
With what, Windows? Most peoples' needs to have Windows compatibility on a Mac are over these days. I have long suggested that if Apple were to move its Mac lines to non Intel and use Apple CPU/GPU technology with a new version of OS X all Apple needs to do is offer a BTO Intel language card as an option the same way we did with the Apple ][e. These days it could probably be a dongle.
I think you will find that Apple asked Intel to Quote on the iPhone/iPad business but that Intel declined, thought they wouldn't make any money on it :-
http://www.dailytech.com/Former+Intel+CEO+Regrets+Passing+Up+on+iPhone+Gravy+Train/article31574.htm
Sometimes big companies just don't get it! For Intel read IBM/Microsoft etc.
Actually, you could probably get away with a small dongle, using Thunderbolt 3. The issue would be keeping Thunderbolt while losing Intel everywhere else.
I am not an engineer but isn't the limitation Bluetooth? If it is then at some point new software innovation requires new hardware technology and it would not make sense to hold back any new technology because at some point in the past older products predated that hardware. If I am wrong and it is simply some arbitrary decision on Apple's part to somehow prevent the technology from working on certain models through software intervention then I'd agree with you. There are precedents for this, witness the lack of Airplay on MBPs from 2010 yet they are quite capable of using Air Parrot.
That was exactly what I was thinking. If the TB dongle had an out port you wouldn't lose a port.
BTW I didn't mean those no no no emoticons there ... not sure how they got in my post.
AirPlay requires the CPU to have IntelInsider DRM, that's why the restriction there. As for the iPad 3, it's probably a performance issue. It really isn't any faster than the iPad 2. Actually, I've wondered if the iPad 3 will get the axe at the same time as the iPad 2 and first gen Mini.
Of those you mention, I am actually finding myself a lot warmer and rooting for IBM. I have long got over IBMs outright attack on Apple in the early 1980's with the removal of VT emulation support from main frames and minis. IBM was punished ironically by Microsoft when they stabbed IBM in the back with the clones. I am very hopeful the iBM-Apple partnership could be huge going forward and IBM have no reason to stab Apple in the back. In fact I even have hope as well as iOS that partnership may also benefit OS X in the future.
Oh thanks, so it wasn't performance issues, simply DRM ... didn't know that. No wonder Air Parrot works well. Actually I had noticed it works with many videos my other Apple devices don't ... DRM hadn't dawned on me!
Is the iPad Air OK with continuity? We have two of those as well as several 3's and a 2. I quite honestly don't keep up with iOS tech that much other than buying them for family.
Seems to work fine, I hardly ever use it as I don't have a Mac that has even a remote chance at running it.
I don't think IBM will abandon Apple, they have no one else to turn to. No one else sells the hardware for IBM's software. You could argue Microsoft might be an alternative, but the Surface Pro 3 is a bit pricy for most enterprises, as well as being rather large...I suspect they're going to sell as many if not more iPad Mini's to enterprises than Airs.
I don't think most people have a love for Microsoft or Intel. Then again, people rarely have a love for their long-time abusers.
Tim once pointed out in an interview that when Compaq's customers complained, they bought a Dell the next time. When Apple's customers complain, they buy another Apple product the next time. He also said his first day of work, he had to cross a picket line of Newton fans protesting Jobs's cancellation of the platform. A lot of those guys stuck with Apple even after that.
I've got a Mac II fx sitting here if you want to upgrade?
Do you have sales numbers? Seriously.
(And I don't mean the pap put out by consulting firms).