Lol no. Cute, but no. There is zero evidence of OSX builds running on anything other than an Intel platform in the wild, and you're not going to see one until the A series is powerful enough to not only run desktop-level apps specifically coded for it, but legacy x86 apps running in a VM environment like Apple had to do after switching from PowerPC to Intel chips via Rosetta. Sorry, but we are nowhere close to that day, Knowitall, and Apple isn't going to risk their hard-earned market share gains by making every piece of software installed on current systems incompatible at launch just to apease the anti-Intel bunch.
Kind of surprised you didn't already "know" that...
Ha, I do knowitall. So, know the argument is that is must be able to run x86 apps. Thats a mistake, lots of people have no need for Intel apps and Apple has fat binaries from before eh Apple so Apple can produces el cheapo MacBooks for $600 or less and expensive $1000+ versions with abysmal performance for people who don't get it.
Some people aren't going to get it. Some think that ARM will need to be faster than all the Macs Apple has on the market, allow for a Rosetta option, and even argue that it would make the VMs and Boot Camp nonfunctional. These are all foolish concepts to a solution that allows Apple to enter into a new, low-end of the PC market and allow for fat-binaries. They also don't see the advantages Apple has now over their PowerPC to Intel switch by 1) having an App Store in place, 2) selling many times more Macs per quarter than back in 2006, 3) the number of users a low-end, ARM-based notebook PC opens up for Apple and 3rd-party developers, 4) what kind of apps low-end users need, and 5) and Apple's continued, excellent work with their IDE SW.
It should be noted that for the vast majority of developers, machine architecture means nothing these days. Apps are written at a high level and seldom dive into architecture specific optimization. The need for Rosetta type emulation is pretty much non existent these days. This especially considering that Apple has the option of demanding apps be compiled with multiple architecture support. More importantly support for multiple binaries has recently been built into the app stores. Right now this allows for binaries optimized for specific Arm generations but can also be used to drive binaries for other architectures to a device.
IN a nut shell, ARM based Macs do not imply the need to support Rosetta type emulation.
Lol no. Cute, but no. There is zero evidence of OSX builds running on anything other than an Intel platform in the wild, and you're not going to see one until the A series is powerful enough to not only run desktop-level apps specifically coded for it, but legacy x86 apps running in a VM environment like Apple had to do after switching from PowerPC to Intel chips via Rosetta. Sorry, but we are nowhere close to that day, Knowitall, and Apple isn't going to risk their hard-earned market share gains by making every piece of software installed on current systems incompatible at launch just to apease the anti-Intel bunch.
Kind of surprised you didn't already "know" that...
Ha, I do knowitall. So, know the argument is that is must be able to run x86 apps. Thats a mistake, lots of people have no need for Intel apps and Apple has fat binaries from before eh Apple so Apple can produces el cheapo MacBooks for $600 or less and expensive $1000+ versions with abysmal performance for people who don't get it.
I don't think they'd make an ARM Macbook cheaper than a 12" iPad Pro at $799 with 4GB RAM and 32GB storage. If you go to 8GB RAM, 256GB SSD, the price would be within $300 of the x86 model. The 4GB/128GB iPad Pro is $949, the 8GB/256GB Macbook is $1299. It could still offer a compelling discount over x86 but there's another option they could use to hit a lower price point which is an upgrade program like the iPhone program. They can sell Macs on an upgrade program over 2 years. Typically Macs depreciate around 25% YoY, it varies depending on the model. The people on the upgrade program would pay up to around half the value of the Mac over 1-2 years and then upgrade. They would upgrade to the new model and Apple refurbs it if needed and sells it on for the remainder with 1 year warranty only.
Buyer 1 on the upgrade program buys a Macbook at $1299, they pay $700 over 2 years = $29/month. Apple takes it back after 2 years, they get a brand new Macbook (or adjusted monthly for a different model) and keep paying that way or they can keep paying it off but would be no longer eligible to upgrade. If Apple takes it back, they refurb it and sell it standalone for $700 with 1 year warranty. That's what the 2 year old laptop is worth. They make $1400 overall, same or more than if the original buyer had paid upfront and kept it. The prices might have to be higher or timeframes different but that's the rough idea.
Every year they get about 20-25 million new Mac sales, they might get 10 million on the upgrade program and so in 2 years, they would be able to sell another 20-25 million plus 10 million to a lower price point. While there is the risk that offering older Macs could diminish new sales, they are supply-limited by the new sales and as the iPhones have shown, most people prefer the newer iPhones vs an older model. There is another risk that they could be stuck with old stock but the restrictions to 1-2 years will limit this and they only have 5-10% PC marketshare worldwide so there's enough demand to ship every unit they have in stock.
Apples tablets are grossly overpriced which explains the high margins. If they really wanted too they could produce an ARM based laptop in the $600 range that wouldn't suck. Interestingly what makes iPads such a hilariously over priced piece of hardware is that asorbinent prices paid for a tiny bit more flash storage. Frankly it amounts to a royal screwing when you look at the price pasted on other SSD formas.
So I really don't buy this idea that a reasonably priced ARM based laptop is impossible. Apple may not be willing but they are chopping at their own roots here and if not careful will eventually topple over. I suspect that at least part of the problem with iPad sales is the consumers judgement of value. When people start applying terms like ripoff to a product sales will suffer.
Comments