Apple's iPad Pro & powerful A9X CPU pose threat to Intel, Cowen says

123578

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 155
    ronbo wrote: »
    As exciting as the A9X is (it's almost neck and neck with the i5)... what will the A10X be like? There have been considerable leaps with each generation, moreso than intel has lately managed. Even if the A9X -> A10X increment isn't as great, where will its performance stand compared to the x86? I can hardly wait to find out.

    Yes!

    In addition, Swift is committed to be open-sourced by end of year.

    Apple considers Swift to be much, much more than an Application programming language ... They consider it to everything from a System programming language to a Scripting language.

    I suspect that Apple has plans to include specialty hardware to perform Swift bitcode execution.
  • Reply 82 of 155
    karmadave wrote: »
    Not a chance and probably never. Just because they could do this, doesn't mean they will or should. Two primary reasons:

    1. Software compatibility - Developer already had to port their apps from PowerPC to Intel and this was not a quick process. I realize that PPC apps could run non-native (at least for a while), but the performance of Intel was vastly superior to PPC. This is not the case with Apple's ARM designs, which while they might be on par, would be vastly slower with emulation.

    Why assume there will be any emulation at all? Do you think those buying a low-end traditional "PC" from Apple require Adobe's suite of apps or do you think they'll be fine with Preview to read PDFs? I'm guessing the former.
    2. MS Windows - A significant number of users run Windows on their Macs and this would likely be difficult if not impossible if they switch to ARM. Also, many enterprises started to support Macs only after Apple could demonstrate Windows support.

    Again, why assume that a low-end traditional "PC" from Apple requires a dual-boot solution to make a sale. If a buyer really requires this then they can get one of the many other Macs out there, but this is not the norm. Neither are VMs for low-end users.
  • Reply 83 of 155
    sennensennen Posts: 1,466member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by torusoft View Post



    Gruber pointed out what I think is the iPad Pro's biggest fault - and it's the fault of iOS, not the iPad Pro itself. The lack of keyboard functionality and bugs surrounding keyboard input in general will undermine iPad Pro adoption for productivity users until thoroughly addressed.



    That is something that can be easily addressed over time. His best point was that ergonomically it is a poor experience to have to raise your arm and reach out and touch an upright computer screen, hence we haven't seen touchscreen Macs and why I think macOS and iOS convergence will remain limited.

  • Reply 84 of 155
    tmay wrote: »
    I'm not seeing the business reason to push OS X to ARM.

    Apple's sales margins are fine for Mac's and there isn't any pressing reason that Apple can't wait for Intel to provide the low power/fanless updates already in the Intel roadmaps to Mac Book Pro's. Apple will abandon x86 when it makes business sense, but that won't happen anytime soon.

    There isn't going to be a OS X tablet; that space is iOS only, and either the big companies will ultimately move their products over, or smaller companies in the mobile space, like Pixelmaker, will quickly fill the gap. This is how competition works.

    Apple's OS X products are around 20 M units a year; it's iOS products are going to top out over 300 m units for 2016. If you just assume that developer's of these products are looking at another 300 m Android devices, it makes no sense to screw around with OS X.

    The only way this makes sense is if you believe that MS is on the right path; I don't believe that they are. I believe that MS will continue to fail in mobile and mobile will continue as a duopoly of iOS and Android OS.

    I also believe that Adobe will fully support CC on the iPad Pro at some point in the future; just not tomorrow. 

    Apple will use ARM to power OS X machines. The MacBook sells for a higher price than the iPad Pro where the A9X trounces the Core M in performance. And on the GPU side, it's akin to a slaughter. The iPad Pro's GPU performance even surpasses even the performance of the rMBP. A machine that costs less than half of a high end MacBook Pro will have better gaming performance.

    With the next iteration of Apple's mobile processor, the A10X may achieve comparable performance to the Core i7 with far greater GPU performance. It would take a Core i7 with a separate dedicated GPU to match Apple's processor. And the cost of such a set up would be far greater than the ARM based A10X SOC.

    In this scenario, please explain why Apple or any company for that matter, would choose a high-priced Intel CPU that costs Apple over an order of magnitude more than its own chip, along with a separate GPU from NVidia further adding to the cost of a machine while reducing battery life?

    Apple's iPads are going to eat into the sales of their own laptops, but even more so into the sales of Wintel laptops. And when Apple's SOC is performing on par with Intel's best Laptop CPUs, never mind mobile, Apple would be insane not to ditch Intel for their own chips.

    Not certain as to the fate of OS X. I would like to see the OS ported to the A series. But then again, re-designing iOS to provide the equivalent functionality of OS X would also be a reasonable alternative.

    But ARM chips will be going into the Mac line of machines. It is an inevitability. Unless Intel has some super secret CPU that they have not released with 3 times the performance of the current core i7 including the integrated GPU, there is no logical reason why Apple won't be moving their desktop and laptop lines over to the ARM SOC. The high end Mac Pro will likely be Xeon based for some time. There will probably be one MacBook Pro machine running Intel's highest performing Core series chip. But it is going to get massively outsold by the ARM based laptops. All for the need to run software by companies like Adobe who can't get on board with the dominant trends.

    Nearly all of Apple's devices are now running on ARM chips. Only the laptops and desktop machines now remain. It's really only a matter of time.

    By the way, I will be picking up my own iPad Pro in approximately two weeks. And with that, the Dell Latitude will get donated to someone else in my company.
  • Reply 85 of 155
    xixoxixo Posts: 427member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Ireland View Post



    Does anyone think the next MacBooks may switch to Apple processors? And if they did how much of a cost savings could Apple transfer to potential buyers over the current MacBook 1 model?

     

    0% - it will all go to the shareholders. At post-Jobs Apple, the shareholder is king, but the customer is a cow to be milked.

  • Reply 86 of 155
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismY View Post





    They didn't give any lengthy warning for AArm64, 3D Touch, split screen, and many others, so I'm not sur they would need to if they look at it as a long term goal. 

     

    None of those changes required developers to do anything with their apps.

     

    Quote:


     We're not talking about the same situation as as PPC to Intel here. We have a Mac App Store, great tools with Xcode, and since this would be for the low-end traditional "PC" line, not starting with the high-end, I'd argue that the default apps plus some easily updated Mac App Store apps would be more than sufficient for this initial release.


     

    We don't know that.  If apple can pull off a transition so that OS X apps will work on ARM chips then developers won't need to know.

     

    Quote:


    I'm pretty sure Apple is very happy with their margins, but would also like to 1) gain more traditional "PC" sales, 2) eat away at their competitor's traditional "PC" sales even faster, and, most of all, 3) make more profit. A cheaper Mac or Mac-like device that doesn't just get them a little extra direct profit from their low-end customers, but instead gets them millions of new customers is probably going to be the better option every time.


     

    No they aren't.  Apple margins are higher on iPhones and iPads than the laptops and desktops.  

  • Reply 87 of 155
    None of those changes required developers to do anything with their apps.

    Don't be stupid.
    We don't know that.  If apple can pull off a transition so that OS X apps will work on ARM chips then developers won't need to know.

    I'm talking about something very specific and you're coming in saying that it can't happen because of something unrelated you pulled out your butt. What Apple will or won't due is completely unrelated. Stay on point!
    No they aren't<span style="line-height:1.4em;">.  Apple margins are higher on iPhones and iPads than the laptops and desktops.  </span>

    Being higher on the market categories where they sell a considerably high volume doesn't mean they aren't happy with their margins in other categories. It's all relative. But that also goes against your point so why even bring it up?
  • Reply 88 of 155
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by NolaMacGuy View Post



    same price as other flagship phones.

     

    For your theory to hold up, Apple's phones should be cheaper.

     

    Quote:

     but that point is irrelevant -- i stated that Apple does indeed lower its mac prices from time to time. you can't refute that (probably ignorant of this fact) 


     

    Sure, they have 'crippled' models to try and offer a budget version for schools, but the iMac and PowerMac have actually gone up in price.

     

    Quote:

     and are now talking about phones for some reason. try again.


     Oh I'm sorry - I'm going too fast for you.   Apple uses their ARM processors in their iPhones and iPads.  Still with me?  Since iPhones and iPads use ARM, but are not cheaper in order to move more units, then it's unlikely putting ARM in laptops will result in cheaper laptops.  Was that slow enough for you to understand, or did that go over your head again?

  • Reply 89 of 155
    No, more expensive.  For your theory to hold up, Apple's phones should be cheaper.

    That makes NO sense.
    Sure, they have 'crippled' models to try and offer a budget version for schools, but the iMac and PowerMac have actually gone up in price.

    So updating the MBPs in 2013 while lowering the price by $200 was crippling those Macs. :rolleyes:
    Oh I'm sorry - I'm going too fast for you.   Apple uses their ARM processors in their iPhones and iPads.  Still with me?  Since iPhones and iPads use ARM, but are not cheaper in order to move more units, then it's unlikely putting ARM in laptops will result in cheaper laptops.  Was that slow enough for you to understand, or did that go over your head again?

    You're so fucking off your rocker. The SoC account for very little cost in an iPhone. The price of an iPhone is not based on the cost of the SoC. The Intel CPU, on the other hand, does account for a considerably higher percentage of the cost of a Mac.
  • Reply 90 of 155

    Originally Posted by SolipsismY View Post



    Being higher on the market categories where they sell a considerably high volume doesn't mean they aren't happy with their margins in other categories. It's all relative. But that also goes against your point so why even bring it up?

     

    There you go again, contradicting yourself.  High volume categories allow for lower margins.  So if their high volume business has higher margins than their low volume lower margin business, then they probably aren't happy with the lower margins.

  • Reply 91 of 155
    There you go again, contradicting yourself.  High volume categories allow for lower margins.  So if their high volume business has higher margins than their low volume lower margin business, then they probably aren't happy with the lower margins.

    You can't be this dense. R&D (and other costs) are fixed. That means x-cost, so if they sell y-units then x-cost is divided by y. If they sell y * 2 then the fixed cost of x then gets reduced by 1/2 for each unit sold thereby allowing their profit margins to be higher. This can also work for variable costs, too, as operational efficiencies and synergies are incorporated. This is one of the tools Apple employees to make their iPhone profit margins higher than the competition which seem to try to sell dozens of new device models each quarter. Why don't you look up economics of scale.

    Since an A-series chip is a horizontal move in R&D for Apple this can not only reduce the cost of the CPU and GPU used by Apple, but can also help further to reduce their fixed and variable costs across other product lines thereby resulting in an even higher profit margin simply buy including a low-cost Mac or Mac-like device into their lineup running on an Apple-designed ARM SoC.
  • Reply 92 of 155
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismY View Post



    That makes NO sense.

     

    I know, you are a little slow to catch on.  Apple has the highest margins on iPhones.  If they cared about volume over margins, their phones should be cheaper than everyone else.  Apple takes 92% of all profits in the mobile industry.  They easily have room to make cheaper phones,  but they don't because they value profit margin over volume.

     

    Quote:


     So updating the MBPs in 2013 while lowering the price by $200 was crippling those Macs. image


     

    LOL! They just put the price back to where it used to be.  Prices went up with the retina screen.

     


    You're so fucking off your rocker. The SoC account for very little cost in an iPhone. The price of an iPhone is not based on the cost of the SoC. The Intel CPU, on the other hand, does account for a considerably higher percentage of the cost of a Mac.


     

    Duh?  The whole reason the SoC is so cheap in the iPhone is because Apple designed it.

  • Reply 93 of 155
    I know, you are a little slow to catch on.  Apple has the highest margins on iPhones.  If they cared about volume over margins, their phones should be cheaper than everyone else.  Apple takes 92% of all profits in the mobile industry.  They easily have room to make cheaper phones,  but they don't because they value profit margin over volume.

    No, they wouldn't, because Apple sells nearly as flagship phones as they can make hence the staggered release each year. Apple cares about profit, which is why balancing volume and margins is important.
    LOL! They just put the price back to where it used to be.  Prices went up with the retina screen.

    So you finally admit they lowered the price of their Mac. What about the MBA? Didn't that start at $1,799. What is it now? $999? Gee, I guess it's impossible for Apple to make any traditional 'PC" lower since they have zero history of trying to capitalize on that market¡
    Duh?  The whole reason the SoC is so cheap in the iPhone is because Apple designed it.

    And the reason why Exynos is so much cheaper than the Intel processor used in the new MacBook is because Apple designed it, eh? :rolleyes:
  • Reply 94 of 155
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismY View Post





    You can't be this dense. R&D (and other costs) are fixed. That means x-cost, so if they sell y-units then x-cost is divided by y. If they sell y * 2 then the fixed cost of x then gets reduced by 1/2 for each unit sold thereby allowing their profit margins to be higher. This can also work for variable costs, too, as operational efficiencies and synergies are incorporated. This is one of the tools Apple employees to make their iPhone profit margins higher than the competition which seem to try to sell dozens of new device models each quarter. Why don't you look up economics of scale.



    Since an A-series chip is a horizontal move in R&D for Apple this can not only reduce the cost of the CPU and GPU used by Apple, but can also help further to reduce their fixed and variable costs across other product lines thereby resulting in an even higher profit margin simply buy including a low-cost Mac or Mac-like device into their lineup running on an Apple-designed ARM SoC.

     

    Apple sells over 200 million iPhones a year.  That's not including iPad.  Apple sells 20 million Macs a year.  The economies of scale are insignificant by putting ARM processors in Macs.  Apple wants the profits Intel is getting for itself.  That's where all the money is for a move like this.

  • Reply 95 of 155
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismY View Post

    And the reason why Exynos is so much cheaper than the Intel processor used in the new MacBook is because Apple designed it, eh? image

     

    Exactly.  No you're learning something!  Sorry I can't answer your other questions, your english is not very good.

  • Reply 96 of 155
    Apple sells over 200 million iPhones a year.  That's not including iPad.  Apple sells 20 million Macs a year.  The economies of scale are insignificant by putting ARM processors in Macs.  Apple wants the profits Intel is getting for itself.  That's where all the money is for a move like this.

    This is why [@]NolaMacGuy[/@] told you to stick to the topic. You can't handle a multifaceted conversation. Economics of scale are already built into their chips, but you're now claiming it would have zero beneficial impact to their traditional "PC" sales if they could sell in the $700–$1000 range or replace an expensive Intel CPU costing $200–$300.

    You are out of your depth here you might want to give in.. or you can continue making stupid comments and I'll be right here waiting to tear them apart in the hopes that you are, in fact, capable of learning.
  • Reply 97 of 155
    Exactly.  No you're learning something!  Sorry I can't answer your other questions, your english is not very good.

    1) So as soon as anything resembling math is involved you can't even parse the sentence; and you claim it's because my "english"[sic] isn't very good. I'd sarcastically say "Good one¡" but I think you actually believe that.

    2) And let the record show that the cool gut is claiming Apple designed Exynos.
  • Reply 98 of 155
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismY View Post





    This is why @NolaMacGuy told you stick to the topic. You can't handle a multifaceted conversation. Economics of scale are already built into their chips



    Is there someone near you that can check your english?  It's quite dreadful.   

     

    Quote:


     , but you're now claiming it would have zero beneficial impact to their traditional "PC" sales if they could sell in the $700–$1000 range or replace an expensive Intel CPU costing $200–$300.


     

    Where did I say this?  Are you as bad at reading english as you are writing it?

  • Reply 99 of 155
    foggyhillfoggyhill Posts: 4,767member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismY View Post





    Why are you making this binary? This is 2015. There is no reason Apple would have to abandon Intel to use ARM on some $700–800 entry-level Mac or Mac-like device that opens up the platform to millions of new customers who would love to abandon Windows but can't justify the initial cost, even when informed about the TCO. This would be that opportunity. Do you recall what Cook said about the typical WinPC's HW performance at the last event? If you do, no compare that to the efficiency of their OS X sub-system running on their HW. This is a win-win for Apple and customers without power users having to give up their Intel-based Mac Pros and MacBook Pros.

     

    The main reason for abandonning Intel is to further create a barrier to entry for competitors. By integrating hw/sw they up the performance and lower the cost. That means nobody can touch them (unless they overbuild seriously and cut their margins).

  • Reply 100 of 155
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by NolaMacGuy View Post





    if you truly believe one of the best apple analysts is an idiot and keyboards are unnatural and unneeded, how about you go a month without a keyboard, or self-ban?



    Ask Apple to develop voice interaction, 3D gesture interaction, natural language processing and alike. Keyboards are done, they cannot be developed further. I understand the needs of a writer, just use dictation, if Apple's own dictation comes short then buy a professional package and a dedicated microphone if you make a living with writing. There is no point to discuss keyboard functionality on an iPad, use a laptop if your job depends on keyboard.

Sign In or Register to comment.