The Mac Mini has no useful purpose in the lineup anymore.
I've been hearing this for nearly as long as the Mac mini has been out. AI had countless articles about its impending demise, and yet it's still here today. I still use one and I would gladly buy a replacement for my headless Mac server in due time (hopefully running Apple silicon).
I believe it could be replaced by an ARM SOC as you suggest, not an Intel CPU, but it won't be a Mac Mini at that point.
Why not?
Why would Apple want to keep X64 alive on the Mac Mini when they could run Mac OS X and iOS natively on ARM, as well as Windows 10, albeit as UWP.
Leave x64 for Intel CPU's and the rest of the Mac product line.
1) I don't understand what your comment has to do with my question to TS about why a Mac running Apple silicon wouldn't be a Mac mini.
Because it wouldn't run all the software the other Macs could run and cause confusion.
And? How many times has Apple had SW that didn't run on certain devices over the decades? Many dozens. Even now we're hitting a wall with 32-bit apps for Macs. Not only is this hurdle achievable and commonplace, the MAS makes it even more of a non-issue that it's ridiculous to say that Apple should never modernize their OSes because of the lame excuse of confusion. That's before we even get into all the advances to how apps are built and compiled compared to the past.
He's saying there wouldn't be any X86 instruction translation or Rosetta.
Again, and?
As such all of the x86 software would be dead unless Apple convinced a lot of software publishers to support MacOS ARM.
Bull fucking shit! My MBP apps aren't going to stop working because Apple releases an ARM-based notebook.
I dunno what a arm based desktop really buys you beyond maybe a $200 discount over a Core i5 mini.
Less cost, better performance, and longer battery life come to mind.
And it wouldn’t be a Mac. While some software might not run on old Macs there is consistency across the lineup.
This isn’t any more different than claiming it would make no difference in user confusion if Apple made the next MBA run only iOS apps.
If it runs macOS on Mac HW than it's a Mac. The CPU architecture doesn't determine that, so implying that a Mac running ARM would have to run iOS is patently wrong and frankly so absurd that I can't believe I'm having this conversation.
It’s not “Mac HW” when all the other Macs are x86 based. It’s not “MacOS” when it cant run the vast majority of MacOS software but MacOS Lite with maybe a slow emulation available on the equivalent of a low end dual core i5 Mac.
It’s a terrible idea to call it a mac.
I would call it Apple Home Server or something and not a Mac.
But it the fact is it wouldn’t have a lot of software ported over. Less cost is not a benefit to Apple. An ARM based small form factor desktop would cost at least as much as a current Mini and highly unlikely to run as fast as an iPad Pro because why would Apple want to sell a $499 computer instead of a $1000 computer?
Any ARM based desktop would be the mini to the iPad Pro’s iMac. It’s almost always more cost effective to buy an iMac. It’s also why the mini has languished.
The difference between MacOS and TvOS and iOS is a bit of UI code. If Apple wanted to make an ARM based Mini it would add some flash and RAM to the aTV 4K and load MacOS on it. Maybe put the A11X in it if it’s ready.
Not likely at all to happen since what I just stated is trivial technically but detrimental to Apples product lineup.
The Mac Mini has no useful purpose in the lineup anymore.
I've been hearing this for nearly as long as the Mac mini has been out. AI had countless articles about its impending demise, and yet it's still here today. I still use one and I would gladly buy a replacement for my headless Mac server in due time (hopefully running Apple silicon).
I believe it could be replaced by an ARM SOC as you suggest, not an Intel CPU, but it won't be a Mac Mini at that point.
Why not?
Why would Apple want to keep X64 alive on the Mac Mini when they could run Mac OS X and iOS natively on ARM, as well as Windows 10, albeit as UWP.
Leave x64 for Intel CPU's and the rest of the Mac product line.
1) I don't understand what your comment has to do with my question to TS about why a Mac running Apple silicon wouldn't be a Mac mini.
Because it wouldn't run all the software the other Macs could run and cause confusion.
And? How many times has Apple had SW that didn't run on certain devices over the decades? Many dozens. Even now we're hitting a wall with 32-bit apps for Macs. Not only is this hurdle achievable and commonplace, the MAS makes it even more of a non-issue that it's ridiculous to say that Apple should never modernize their OSes because of the lame excuse of confusion. That's before we even get into all the advances to how apps are built and compiled compared to the past.
He's saying there wouldn't be any X86 instruction translation or Rosetta.
Again, and?
As such all of the x86 software would be dead unless Apple convinced a lot of software publishers to support MacOS ARM.
Bull fucking shit! My MBP apps aren't going to stop working because Apple releases an ARM-based notebook.
I dunno what a arm based desktop really buys you beyond maybe a $200 discount over a Core i5 mini.
Less cost, better performance, and longer battery life come to mind.
And it wouldn’t be a Mac. While some software might not run on old Macs there is consistency across the lineup.
This isn’t any more different than claiming it would make no difference in user confusion if Apple made the next MBA run only iOS apps.
If it runs macOS on Mac HW than it's a Mac. The CPU architecture doesn't determine that, so implying that a Mac running ARM would have to run iOS is patently wrong and frankly so absurd that I can't believe I'm having this conversation.
It’s not “Mac HW” when all the other Macs are x86 based. It’s not “MacOS” when it cant run the vast majority of MacOS software but MacOS Lite
1) It would still be a Mac, just like it was a Mac under Motorola, a Mac under PPC 32-bit, under PPC 64-bit, Intel 32-bit, and Intel 64-bit.
2) It wouldn't be macOS Lite, it would be macOS. And why keep capitalizing the 'M' in macOS? This isn't new terminology.
3) You need to get rid of this notion that Mac = Intel and iPhone = ARM.
PS: It reminds me when people said Apple would never use OLED for the Watch and then for the iPhone because they kept saying that was for Samsung and other companies to use. It weird a stance to draw these technology lines in the sand that ignore the very essence of what makes Apple products so great.
The Mac Mini has no useful purpose in the lineup anymore.
I've been hearing this for nearly as long as the Mac mini has been out. AI had countless articles about its impending demise, and yet it's still here today. I still use one and I would gladly buy a replacement for my headless Mac server in due time (hopefully running Apple silicon).
I believe it could be replaced by an ARM SOC as you suggest, not an Intel CPU, but it won't be a Mac Mini at that point.
Why not?
Why would Apple want to keep X64 alive on the Mac Mini when they could run Mac OS X and iOS natively on ARM, as well as Windows 10, albeit as UWP.
Leave x64 for Intel CPU's and the rest of the Mac product line.
1) I don't understand what your comment has to do with my question to TS about why a Mac running Apple silicon wouldn't be a Mac mini.
Because it wouldn't run all the software the other Macs could run and cause confusion.
And? How many times has Apple had SW that didn't run on certain devices over the decades? Many dozens. Even now we're hitting a wall with 32-bit apps for Macs. Not only is this hurdle achievable and commonplace, the MAS makes it even more of a non-issue that it's ridiculous to say that Apple should never modernize their OSes because of the lame excuse of confusion. That's before we even get into all the advances to how apps are built and compiled compared to the past.
He's saying there wouldn't be any X86 instruction translation or Rosetta.
Again, and?
As such all of the x86 software would be dead unless Apple convinced a lot of software publishers to support MacOS ARM.
Bull fucking shit! My MBP apps aren't going to stop working because Apple releases an ARM-based notebook.
I dunno what a arm based desktop really buys you beyond maybe a $200 discount over a Core i5 mini.
Less cost, better performance, and longer battery life come to mind.
And it wouldn’t be a Mac. While some software might not run on old Macs there is consistency across the lineup.
This isn’t any more different than claiming it would make no difference in user confusion if Apple made the next MBA run only iOS apps.
If it runs macOS on Mac HW than it's a Mac. The CPU architecture doesn't determine that, so implying that a Mac running ARM would have to run iOS is patently wrong and frankly so absurd that I can't believe I'm having this conversation.
It’s not “Mac HW” when all the other Macs are x86 based. It’s not “MacOS” when it cant run the vast majority of MacOS software but MacOS Lite
1) It would still be a Mac, just like it was a Mac under Motorola, a Mac under PPC 32-bit, under PPC 64-bit, Intel 32-bit, and Intel 64-bit.
2) It wouldn't be macOS Lite, it would be macOS. And why keep capitalizing the 'M' in macOS? This isn't new terminology.
3) You need to get rid of this notion that Mac = Intel and iPhone = ARM.
Nope, that’s a straw man. I never said arm=iPhone just that calling a arm based computer a “Mac” when x86 macs still are dominant is a marketing mistake and causes user confusion.
The Mac Mini has no useful purpose in the lineup anymore.
I've been hearing this for nearly as long as the Mac mini has been out. AI had countless articles about its impending demise, and yet it's still here today. I still use one and I would gladly buy a replacement for my headless Mac server in due time (hopefully running Apple silicon).
I believe it could be replaced by an ARM SOC as you suggest, not an Intel CPU, but it won't be a Mac Mini at that point.
Why not?
Why would Apple want to keep X64 alive on the Mac Mini when they could run Mac OS X and iOS natively on ARM, as well as Windows 10, albeit as UWP.
Leave x64 for Intel CPU's and the rest of the Mac product line.
1) I don't understand what your comment has to do with my question to TS about why a Mac running Apple silicon wouldn't be a Mac mini.
Because it wouldn't run all the software the other Macs could run and cause confusion.
And? How many times has Apple had SW that didn't run on certain devices over the decades? Many dozens. Even now we're hitting a wall with 32-bit apps for Macs. Not only is this hurdle achievable and commonplace, the MAS makes it even more of a non-issue that it's ridiculous to say that Apple should never modernize their OSes because of the lame excuse of confusion. That's before we even get into all the advances to how apps are built and compiled compared to the past.
He's saying there wouldn't be any X86 instruction translation or Rosetta.
Again, and?
As such all of the x86 software would be dead unless Apple convinced a lot of software publishers to support MacOS ARM.
Bull fucking shit! My MBP apps aren't going to stop working because Apple releases an ARM-based notebook.
I dunno what a arm based desktop really buys you beyond maybe a $200 discount over a Core i5 mini.
Less cost, better performance, and longer battery life come to mind.
And it wouldn’t be a Mac. While some software might not run on old Macs there is consistency across the lineup.
This isn’t any more different than claiming it would make no difference in user confusion if Apple made the next MBA run only iOS apps.
If it runs macOS on Mac HW than it's a Mac. The CPU architecture doesn't determine that, so implying that a Mac running ARM would have to run iOS is patently wrong and frankly so absurd that I can't believe I'm having this conversation.
It’s not “Mac HW” when all the other Macs are x86 based. It’s not “MacOS” when it cant run the vast majority of MacOS software but MacOS Lite
1) It would still be a Mac, just like it was a Mac under Motorola, a Mac under PPC 32-bit, under PPC 64-bit, Intel 32-bit, and Intel 64-bit.
2) It wouldn't be macOS Lite, it would be macOS. And why keep capitalizing the 'M' in macOS? This isn't new terminology.
3) You need to get rid of this notion that Mac = Intel and iPhone = ARM.
Nope, that’s a straw man. I never said arm=iPhone just that calling a arm based computer a “Mac” when x86 macs still are dominant is a marketing mistake and causes user confusion.
But this is typical of the way you argue.
1) That's the implication with your simplistic argument and with countless others like you for years after Apple's silicon was gaining ground.
2) As previously detailed, the landscape has changed so much and Apple has prepared for this for so many year that your straw man about confusion that would force Intel to be the only architecture for the rest of the Mac's lifespan until they drop it completely for only iPhone and iPads is ridiculous. They've done amazing things with their transitions and this one is considerably better poised than any other in the history of Apple.
3) Again, you fucking saw this to be the case at WWDC this year when clearly detailed how iOS and macOS will not be merging into a single, crappy OS, but will instead continue to use underlying core code with a distinct UI and HW that defines each product category.
The Mac Mini has no useful purpose in the lineup anymore.
I've been hearing this for nearly as long as the Mac mini has been out. AI had countless articles about its impending demise, and yet it's still here today. I still use one and I would gladly buy a replacement for my headless Mac server in due time (hopefully running Apple silicon).
I believe it could be replaced by an ARM SOC as you suggest, not an Intel CPU, but it won't be a Mac Mini at that point.
Why not?
Why would Apple want to keep X64 alive on the Mac Mini when they could run Mac OS X and iOS natively on ARM, as well as Windows 10, albeit as UWP.
Leave x64 for Intel CPU's and the rest of the Mac product line.
1) I don't understand what your comment has to do with my question to TS about why a Mac running Apple silicon wouldn't be a Mac mini.
Because it wouldn't run all the software the other Macs could run and cause confusion.
And? How many times has Apple had SW that didn't run on certain devices over the decades? Many dozens. Even now we're hitting a wall with 32-bit apps for Macs. Not only is this hurdle achievable and commonplace, the MAS makes it even more of a non-issue that it's ridiculous to say that Apple should never modernize their OSes because of the lame excuse of confusion. That's before we even get into all the advances to how apps are built and compiled compared to the past.
He's saying there wouldn't be any X86 instruction translation or Rosetta.
Again, and?
As such all of the x86 software would be dead unless Apple convinced a lot of software publishers to support MacOS ARM.
Bull fucking shit! My MBP apps aren't going to stop working because Apple releases an ARM-based notebook.
I dunno what a arm based desktop really buys you beyond maybe a $200 discount over a Core i5 mini.
Less cost, better performance, and longer battery life come to mind.
And it wouldn’t be a Mac. While some software might not run on old Macs there is consistency across the lineup.
This isn’t any more different than claiming it would make no difference in user confusion if Apple made the next MBA run only iOS apps.
If it runs macOS on Mac HW than it's a Mac. The CPU architecture doesn't determine that, so implying that a Mac running ARM would have to run iOS is patently wrong and frankly so absurd that I can't believe I'm having this conversation.
It’s not “Mac HW” when all the other Macs are x86 based. It’s not “MacOS” when it cant run the vast majority of MacOS software but MacOS Lite
1) It would still be a Mac, just like it was a Mac under Motorola, a Mac under PPC 32-bit, under PPC 64-bit, Intel 32-bit, and Intel 64-bit.
2) It wouldn't be macOS Lite, it would be macOS. And why keep capitalizing the 'M' in macOS? This isn't new terminology.
3) You need to get rid of this notion that Mac = Intel and iPhone = ARM.
Nope, that’s a straw man. I never said arm=iPhone just that calling a arm based computer a “Mac” when x86 macs still are dominant is a marketing mistake and causes user confusion.
But this is typical of the way you argue.
1) That's the implication with your simplistic argument and with countless others like you for years after Apple's silicon was gaining ground.
2) As previously detailed, the landscape has changed so much and Apple has prepared for this for so many year that your straw man about confusion that would force Intel to be the only architecture for the rest of the Mac's lifespan until they drop it completely for only iPhone and iPads is ridiculous. They've done amazing things with their transitions and this one is considerably better poised than any other in the history of Apple.
3) Again, you fucking saw this to be the case at WWDC this year when clearly detailed how iOS and macOS will not be merging into a single, crappy OS, but will instead continue to use underlying core code with a distinct UI and HW that defines each product category.
Still tying to udneerstandt how Apple is going to reengineer a cost effective Mac Mini, whatever the hardware, that will sell enough units..
Soli said: 1) That's the implication with your simplistic argument and with countless others like you for years after Apple's silicon was gaining ground.
2) As previously detailed, the landscape has changed so much and Apple has prepared for this for so many year that your straw man about confusion that would force Intel to be the only architecture for the rest of the Mac's lifespan until they drop it completely for only iPhone and iPads is ridiculous. They've done amazing things with their transitions and this one is considerably better poised than any other in the history of Apple.
3) Again, you fucking saw this to be the case at WWDC this year when clearly detailed how iOS and macOS will not be merging into a single, crappy OS, but will instead continue to use underlying core code with a distinct UI and HW that defines each product category.
Still tying to udneerstandt how Apple is going to reengineer a cost effective Mac Mini, whatever the hardware, that will sell enough units..
Not seeing it.
Let me know how you saw that Apple would reengineer the Mac mini to be milled into a hollow from a single piece of solid aluminum despite being a low-production, entry-level machine, then we can talk.
More to the point, I wonder how many MacBookPro users are actually impacted by lack of 32 GB memory. You certainly have no use for it if you are currently using a 2011 MBP maxing out at 8GB. For you, it's just another day of bench racing.
4 GB of RAM is installed as two 2 GB modules, no slots free.
*Apple officially supports a maximum of 8 GB of RAM, but third-parties have determined that this model actually is capable of using up to 16 GB of RAM with two 8 GB memory modules.
Cool story, bro. — Sent from my 2011 MBP with 16 GB of RAM.
How does "Cool story bro" work when his comment says that it can support 16 GiB of RAM? Surely you don't begrudge tmay for not knowing the technical specs from a 7yo laptop. He did due diligence by researching the data pertaining to your MBP model.
Huh, the original post was edited to include that bold text at the bottom, the first time I tried to post the editor hung and I had to requote and paste and didn't notice the edit. First time around it sure looked like they were correcting me and saying that the official spec was 8GB. Either way, it's 16GB.
Bro, if I'm questioned, I attempt to find a link that is accurate, which I did. It does support what you state, but it is also likely that Avon b7 had, at best, the maximum memory available from Apple. Since Avon b7, didn't comment, I don't know what amount of RAM he actually had.
More to the point, I wonder how many MacBookPro users are actually impacted by lack of 32 GB memory. You certainly have no use for it if you are currently using a 2011 MBP maxing out at 8GB. For you, it's just another day of bench racing.
4 GB of RAM is installed as two 2 GB modules, no slots free.
*Apple officially supports a maximum of 8 GB of RAM, but third-parties have determined that this model actually is capable of using up to 16 GB of RAM with two 8 GB memory modules.
Cool story, bro. — Sent from my 2011 MBP with 16 GB of RAM.
How does "Cool story bro" work when his comment says that it can support 16 GiB of RAM? Surely you don't begrudge tmay for not knowing the technical specs from a 7yo laptop. He did due diligence by researching the data pertaining to your MBP model.
Huh, the original post was edited to include that bold text at the bottom, the first time I tried to post the editor hung and I had to requote and paste and didn't notice the edit. First time around it sure looked like they were correcting me and saying that the official spec was 8GB. Either way, it's 16GB.
Even more to tmay's credit his pre-edit comment (which you can see in my reply #138) he ends his comment with "That's the official spec for the early 2011 MacBookPro; perhaps it's upgradeable to 16GB," and then proceeded to immediately look into it.
My comment both verified your claim and addressed his closing suspicion. Based on his edit I think it's clear he didn't see my post before he edited and you having copied his edit means he updated before you hit Reply to respond to him. I love when people look into these things and wish we had more posters like tmay (and you) that were more concerned about being accurate over being right.
The "cool story, bro" part was a bit tongue-in-cheek if a bit intentionally snarky, but I get what you were intending to do. I'm as guilty as anyone rushing over bits and pieces of peoples' posts or missing the point, and if I were wrong, I'd admit to being so, so let's just agree that none of us were wrong and move on.
The Mac Mini has no useful purpose in the lineup anymore.
I've been hearing this for nearly as long as the Mac mini has been out. AI had countless articles about its impending demise, and yet it's still here today. I still use one and I would gladly buy a replacement for my headless Mac server in due time (hopefully running Apple silicon).
I believe it could be replaced by an ARM SOC as you suggest, not an Intel CPU, but it won't be a Mac Mini at that point.
Why not?
Why would Apple want to keep X64 alive on the Mac Mini when they could run Mac OS X and iOS natively on ARM, as well as Windows 10, albeit as UWP.
Leave x64 for Intel CPU's and the rest of the Mac product line.
1) I don't understand what your comment has to do with my question to TS about why a Mac running Apple silicon wouldn't be a Mac mini.
Because it wouldn't run all the software the other Macs could run and cause confusion.
And? How many times has Apple had SW that didn't run on certain devices over the decades? Many dozens. Even now we're hitting a wall with 32-bit apps for Macs. Not only is this hurdle achievable and commonplace, the MAS makes it even more of a non-issue that it's ridiculous to say that Apple should never modernize their OSes because of the lame excuse of confusion. That's before we even get into all the advances to how apps are built and compiled compared to the past.
He's saying there wouldn't be any X86 instruction translation or Rosetta.
Again, and?
As such all of the x86 software would be dead unless Apple convinced a lot of software publishers to support MacOS ARM.
Bull fucking shit! My MBP apps aren't going to stop working because Apple releases an ARM-based notebook.
I dunno what a arm based desktop really buys you beyond maybe a $200 discount over a Core i5 mini.
Less cost, better performance, and longer battery life come to mind.
And it wouldn’t be a Mac. While some software might not run on old Macs there is consistency across the lineup.
This isn’t any more different than claiming it would make no difference in user confusion if Apple made the next MBA run only iOS apps.
If it runs macOS on Mac HW than it's a Mac. The CPU architecture doesn't determine that, so implying that a Mac running ARM would have to run iOS is patently wrong and frankly so absurd that I can't believe I'm having this conversation.
It’s not “Mac HW” when all the other Macs are x86 based. It’s not “MacOS” when it cant run the vast majority of MacOS software but MacOS Lite
1) It would still be a Mac, just like it was a Mac under Motorola, a Mac under PPC 32-bit, under PPC 64-bit, Intel 32-bit, and Intel 64-bit.
2) It wouldn't be macOS Lite, it would be macOS. And why keep capitalizing the 'M' in macOS? This isn't new terminology.
3) You need to get rid of this notion that Mac = Intel and iPhone = ARM.
Nope, that’s a straw man. I never said arm=iPhone just that calling a arm based computer a “Mac” when x86 macs still are dominant is a marketing mistake and causes user confusion.
But this is typical of the way you argue.
1) That's the implication with your simplistic argument and with countless others like you for years after Apple's silicon was gaining ground.
2) As previously detailed, the landscape has changed so much and Apple has prepared for this for so many year that your straw man about confusion that would force Intel to be the only architecture for the rest of the Mac's lifespan until they drop it completely for only iPhone and iPads is ridiculous. They've done amazing things with their transitions and this one is considerably better poised than any other in the history of Apple.
3) Again, you fucking saw this to be the case at WWDC this year when clearly detailed how iOS and macOS will not be merging into a single, crappy OS, but will instead continue to use underlying core code with a distinct UI and HW that defines each product category.
Still tying to udneerstandt how Apple is going to reengineer a cost effective Mac Mini, whatever the hardware, that will sell enough units..
Not seeing it.
Let me know how you saw that Apple would reengineer the Mac mini to be milled into a hollow from a single piece of solid aluminum despite being an entry-level machine, then we can talk.
Doesn’t matter. What matters is you have to sell twice as many Macs that cost $500 as $1000 Macs at the same margin to make the same money and you crater your ASPs in the process. Milling the mini out of a block of Alu-mini-um means it costs $X more and you push your lowest end to $499 vs $300 NUC. Even if X is $200 (which it isn’t) that’s worthwhile because you can position the entire product line $200 more and increase brand cachet.
Mac mini below $500 just isn’t worth the effort for Apple. What? You want them to sell a Mac mini for the same price as a base iPad? Not. Gonna. Happen.
There’s sufficient volume for iPads vs iPad Pros that doesn’t exist for Macs.
The Mac Mini has no useful purpose in the lineup anymore.
I've been hearing this for nearly as long as the Mac mini has been out. AI had countless articles about its impending demise, and yet it's still here today. I still use one and I would gladly buy a replacement for my headless Mac server in due time (hopefully running Apple silicon).
I believe it could be replaced by an ARM SOC as you suggest, not an Intel CPU, but it won't be a Mac Mini at that point.
Why not?
Why would Apple want to keep X64 alive on the Mac Mini when they could run Mac OS X and iOS natively on ARM, as well as Windows 10, albeit as UWP.
Leave x64 for Intel CPU's and the rest of the Mac product line.
1) I don't understand what your comment has to do with my question to TS about why a Mac running Apple silicon wouldn't be a Mac mini.
Because it wouldn't run all the software the other Macs could run and cause confusion.
And? How many times has Apple had SW that didn't run on certain devices over the decades? Many dozens. Even now we're hitting a wall with 32-bit apps for Macs. Not only is this hurdle achievable and commonplace, the MAS makes it even more of a non-issue that it's ridiculous to say that Apple should never modernize their OSes because of the lame excuse of confusion. That's before we even get into all the advances to how apps are built and compiled compared to the past.
He's saying there wouldn't be any X86 instruction translation or Rosetta.
Again, and?
As such all of the x86 software would be dead unless Apple convinced a lot of software publishers to support MacOS ARM.
Bull fucking shit! My MBP apps aren't going to stop working because Apple releases an ARM-based notebook.
I dunno what a arm based desktop really buys you beyond maybe a $200 discount over a Core i5 mini.
Less cost, better performance, and longer battery life come to mind.
And it wouldn’t be a Mac. While some software might not run on old Macs there is consistency across the lineup.
This isn’t any more different than claiming it would make no difference in user confusion if Apple made the next MBA run only iOS apps.
If it runs macOS on Mac HW than it's a Mac. The CPU architecture doesn't determine that, so implying that a Mac running ARM would have to run iOS is patently wrong and frankly so absurd that I can't believe I'm having this conversation.
It’s not “Mac HW” when all the other Macs are x86 based. It’s not “MacOS” when it cant run the vast majority of MacOS software but MacOS Lite
1) It would still be a Mac, just like it was a Mac under Motorola, a Mac under PPC 32-bit, under PPC 64-bit, Intel 32-bit, and Intel 64-bit.
2) It wouldn't be macOS Lite, it would be macOS. And why keep capitalizing the 'M' in macOS? This isn't new terminology.
3) You need to get rid of this notion that Mac = Intel and iPhone = ARM.
Nope, that’s a straw man. I never said arm=iPhone just that calling a arm based computer a “Mac” when x86 macs still are dominant is a marketing mistake and causes user confusion.
But this is typical of the way you argue.
1) That's the implication with your simplistic argument and with countless others like you for years after Apple's silicon was gaining ground.
2) As previously detailed, the landscape has changed so much and Apple has prepared for this for so many year that your straw man about confusion that would force Intel to be the only architecture for the rest of the Mac's lifespan until they drop it completely for only iPhone and iPads is ridiculous. They've done amazing things with their transitions and this one is considerably better poised than any other in the history of Apple.
3) Again, you fucking saw this to be the case at WWDC this year when clearly detailed how iOS and macOS will not be merging into a single, crappy OS, but will instead continue to use underlying core code with a distinct UI and HW that defines each product category.
Still tying to udneerstandt how Apple is going to reengineer a cost effective Mac Mini, whatever the hardware, that will sell enough units..
Not seeing it.
Let me know how you saw that Apple would reengineer the Mac mini to be milled into a hollow from a single piece of solid aluminum despite being an entry-level machine, then we can talk.
Doesn’t matter. What matters is you have to sell twice as many Macs that cost $500 as $1000 Macs at the same margin to make the same money and you crater your ASPs in the process. Milling the mini out of a block of Alu-mini-um means it costs $X more and you push your lowest end to $499 vs $300 NUC. Even if X is $200 (which it isn’t) that’s worthwhile because you can position the entire product line $200 more and increase brand cachet.
Mac mini below $500 just isn’t worth the effort for Apple. What? You want them to sell a Mac mini for the same price as a base iPad? Not. Gonna. Happen.
There’s sufficient volume for iPads vs iPad Pros that doesn’t exist for Macs.
That's why is absolutely does matter. According to you, Apple won't do something in the future because you don't think it's worthwhile for them while you still don't understand that they've kept building it with increased engineering costs and at lower volumes in the past. If you can't explain how that works then you have no foundation in which to claim that Apple Mac lines is EOL because of some unfounded hypotheses or secret desire.
I see Macs running macOS on Apple silicon as coming. Dismiss the idea all you want but I see no other path for Apple… even without Intel having dropped the ball several times.
More to the point, I wonder how many MacBookPro users are actually impacted by lack of 32 GB memory. You certainly have no use for it if you are currently using a 2011 MBP maxing out at 8GB. For you, it's just another day of bench racing.
4 GB of RAM is installed as two 2 GB modules, no slots free.
*Apple officially supports a maximum of 8 GB of RAM, but third-parties have determined that this model actually is capable of using up to 16 GB of RAM with two 8 GB memory modules.
Cool story, bro. — Sent from my 2011 MBP with 16 GB of RAM.
How does "Cool story bro" work when his comment says that it can support 16 GiB of RAM? Surely you don't begrudge tmay for not knowing the technical specs from a 7yo laptop. He did due diligence by researching the data pertaining to your MBP model.
Huh, the original post was edited to include that bold text at the bottom, the first time I tried to post the editor hung and I had to requote and paste and didn't notice the edit. First time around it sure looked like they were correcting me and saying that the official spec was 8GB. Either way, it's 16GB.
Bro, if I'm questioned, I attempt to find a link that is accurate, which I did. It does support what you state, but it is also likely that Avon b7 had, at best, the maximum memory available from Apple. Since Avon b7, didn't comment, I don't know what amount of RAM he actually had.
More to the point, I wonder how many MacBookPro users are actually impacted by lack of 32 GB memory. You certainly have no use for it if you are currently using a 2011 MBP maxing out at 8GB. For you, it's just another day of bench racing.
4 GB of RAM is installed as two 2 GB modules, no slots free.
*Apple officially supports a maximum of 8 GB of RAM, but third-parties have determined that this model actually is capable of using up to 16 GB of RAM with two 8 GB memory modules.
Cool story, bro. — Sent from my 2011 MBP with 16 GB of RAM.
How does "Cool story bro" work when his comment says that it can support 16 GiB of RAM? Surely you don't begrudge tmay for not knowing the technical specs from a 7yo laptop. He did due diligence by researching the data pertaining to your MBP model.
Huh, the original post was edited to include that bold text at the bottom, the first time I tried to post the editor hung and I had to requote and paste and didn't notice the edit. First time around it sure looked like they were correcting me and saying that the official spec was 8GB. Either way, it's 16GB.
Even more to tmay's credit his pre-edit comment (which you can see in my reply #138) he ends his comment with "That's the official spec for the early 2011 MacBookPro; perhaps it's upgradeable to 16GB," and then proceeded to immediately look into it.
My comment both verified your claim and addressed his closing suspicion. Based on his edit I think it's clear he didn't see my post before he edited and you having copied his edit means he updated before you hit Reply to respond to him. I love when people look into these things and wish we had more posters like tmay (and you) that were more concerned about being accurate over being right.
The "cool story, bro" part was a bit tongue-in-cheek if a bit intentionally snarky, but I get what you were intending to do. I'm as guilty as anyone rushing over bits and pieces of peoples' posts or missing the point, and if I were wrong, I'd admit to being so, so let's just agree that none of us were wrong and move on.
As I posted earlier, no worries. i have a bad habit of post editing so I'm at least partly to blame.
Soli said: 1) That's the implication with your simplistic argument and with countless others like you for years after Apple's silicon was gaining ground.
2) As previously detailed, the landscape has changed so much and Apple has prepared for this for so many year that your straw man about confusion that would force Intel to be the only architecture for the rest of the Mac's lifespan until they drop it completely for only iPhone and iPads is ridiculous. They've done amazing things with their transitions and this one is considerably better poised than any other in the history of Apple.
3) Again, you fucking saw this to be the case at WWDC this year when clearly detailed how iOS and macOS will not be merging into a single, crappy OS, but will instead continue to use underlying core code with a distinct UI and HW that defines each product category.
Still tying to udneerstandt how Apple is going to reengineer a cost effective Mac Mini, whatever the hardware, that will sell enough units..
Not seeing it.
Let me know how you saw that Apple would reengineer the Mac mini to be milled into a hollow from a single piece of solid aluminum despite being a low-production, entry-level machine, then we can talk.
Uhm, being a Mechanical Engineer and a machinist, it wouldn't be out of question to actually do that, but in truth, I would never argue to build another Mac Mini.
Still wanna talk?
How about giving up on your dream with the realization that the Mac Mini is better off dead, and at best, reincarnated as a media server / home theater hub?
The Mac Mini has no useful purpose in the lineup anymore.
I've been hearing this for nearly as long as the Mac mini has been out. AI had countless articles about its impending demise, and yet it's still here today. I still use one and I would gladly buy a replacement for my headless Mac server in due time (hopefully running Apple silicon).
I believe it could be replaced by an ARM SOC as you suggest, not an Intel CPU, but it won't be a Mac Mini at that point.
Why not?
Why would Apple want to keep X64 alive on the Mac Mini when they could run Mac OS X and iOS natively on ARM, as well as Windows 10, albeit as UWP.
Leave x64 for Intel CPU's and the rest of the Mac product line.
1) I don't understand what your comment has to do with my question to TS about why a Mac running Apple silicon wouldn't be a Mac mini.
Because it wouldn't run all the software the other Macs could run and cause confusion.
And? How many times has Apple had SW that didn't run on certain devices over the decades? Many dozens. Even now we're hitting a wall with 32-bit apps for Macs. Not only is this hurdle achievable and commonplace, the MAS makes it even more of a non-issue that it's ridiculous to say that Apple should never modernize their OSes because of the lame excuse of confusion. That's before we even get into all the advances to how apps are built and compiled compared to the past.
He's saying there wouldn't be any X86 instruction translation or Rosetta.
Again, and?
As such all of the x86 software would be dead unless Apple convinced a lot of software publishers to support MacOS ARM.
Bull fucking shit! My MBP apps aren't going to stop working because Apple releases an ARM-based notebook.
I dunno what a arm based desktop really buys you beyond maybe a $200 discount over a Core i5 mini.
Less cost, better performance, and longer battery life come to mind.
And it wouldn’t be a Mac. While some software might not run on old Macs there is consistency across the lineup.
This isn’t any more different than claiming it would make no difference in user confusion if Apple made the next MBA run only iOS apps.
If it runs macOS on Mac HW than it's a Mac. The CPU architecture doesn't determine that, so implying that a Mac running ARM would have to run iOS is patently wrong and frankly so absurd that I can't believe I'm having this conversation.
It’s not “Mac HW” when all the other Macs are x86 based. It’s not “MacOS” when it cant run the vast majority of MacOS software but MacOS Lite
1) It would still be a Mac, just like it was a Mac under Motorola, a Mac under PPC 32-bit, under PPC 64-bit, Intel 32-bit, and Intel 64-bit.
2) It wouldn't be macOS Lite, it would be macOS. And why keep capitalizing the 'M' in macOS? This isn't new terminology.
3) You need to get rid of this notion that Mac = Intel and iPhone = ARM.
Nope, that’s a straw man. I never said arm=iPhone just that calling a arm based computer a “Mac” when x86 macs still are dominant is a marketing mistake and causes user confusion.
But this is typical of the way you argue.
1) That's the implication with your simplistic argument and with countless others like you for years after Apple's silicon was gaining ground.
2) As previously detailed, the landscape has changed so much and Apple has prepared for this for so many year that your straw man about confusion that would force Intel to be the only architecture for the rest of the Mac's lifespan until they drop it completely for only iPhone and iPads is ridiculous. They've done amazing things with their transitions and this one is considerably better poised than any other in the history of Apple.
3) Again, you fucking saw this to be the case at WWDC this year when clearly detailed how iOS and macOS will not be merging into a single, crappy OS, but will instead continue to use underlying core code with a distinct UI and HW that defines each product category.
Again, straw man. I haven’t said they would merge iOS and MacOS. I said that they shouldn’t call an arm based desktop computer running ARM MacOS or some MacOS derivative a Mac. A point you continue to ignore and generate strawmen to argue against. They would be better calling it an Apple Compute Core or Node or something but not Mac. Clearly different product line and user expectations.
I don’t see a laptop ARM now that they have been pushing the iPad Pro so hard. Selling a $700 ARM based Air vs a $800 iPad Pro 12.9 + $170 keyboard is a bad trade.
The Mac Mini has no useful purpose in the lineup anymore.
I've been hearing this for nearly as long as the Mac mini has been out. AI had countless articles about its impending demise, and yet it's still here today. I still use one and I would gladly buy a replacement for my headless Mac server in due time (hopefully running Apple silicon).
I believe it could be replaced by an ARM SOC as you suggest, not an Intel CPU, but it won't be a Mac Mini at that point.
Why not?
Why would Apple want to keep X64 alive on the Mac Mini when they could run Mac OS X and iOS natively on ARM, as well as Windows 10, albeit as UWP.
Leave x64 for Intel CPU's and the rest of the Mac product line.
1) I don't understand what your comment has to do with my question to TS about why a Mac running Apple silicon wouldn't be a Mac mini.
Because it wouldn't run all the software the other Macs could run and cause confusion.
And? How many times has Apple had SW that didn't run on certain devices over the decades? Many dozens. Even now we're hitting a wall with 32-bit apps for Macs. Not only is this hurdle achievable and commonplace, the MAS makes it even more of a non-issue that it's ridiculous to say that Apple should never modernize their OSes because of the lame excuse of confusion. That's before we even get into all the advances to how apps are built and compiled compared to the past.
He's saying there wouldn't be any X86 instruction translation or Rosetta.
Again, and?
As such all of the x86 software would be dead unless Apple convinced a lot of software publishers to support MacOS ARM.
Bull fucking shit! My MBP apps aren't going to stop working because Apple releases an ARM-based notebook.
I dunno what a arm based desktop really buys you beyond maybe a $200 discount over a Core i5 mini.
Less cost, better performance, and longer battery life come to mind.
And it wouldn’t be a Mac. While some software might not run on old Macs there is consistency across the lineup.
This isn’t any more different than claiming it would make no difference in user confusion if Apple made the next MBA run only iOS apps.
If it runs macOS on Mac HW than it's a Mac. The CPU architecture doesn't determine that, so implying that a Mac running ARM would have to run iOS is patently wrong and frankly so absurd that I can't believe I'm having this conversation.
It’s not “Mac HW” when all the other Macs are x86 based. It’s not “MacOS” when it cant run the vast majority of MacOS software but MacOS Lite
1) It would still be a Mac, just like it was a Mac under Motorola, a Mac under PPC 32-bit, under PPC 64-bit, Intel 32-bit, and Intel 64-bit.
2) It wouldn't be macOS Lite, it would be macOS. And why keep capitalizing the 'M' in macOS? This isn't new terminology.
3) You need to get rid of this notion that Mac = Intel and iPhone = ARM.
Nope, that’s a straw man. I never said arm=iPhone just that calling a arm based computer a “Mac” when x86 macs still are dominant is a marketing mistake and causes user confusion.
But this is typical of the way you argue.
1) That's the implication with your simplistic argument and with countless others like you for years after Apple's silicon was gaining ground.
2) As previously detailed, the landscape has changed so much and Apple has prepared for this for so many year that your straw man about confusion that would force Intel to be the only architecture for the rest of the Mac's lifespan until they drop it completely for only iPhone and iPads is ridiculous. They've done amazing things with their transitions and this one is considerably better poised than any other in the history of Apple.
3) Again, you fucking saw this to be the case at WWDC this year when clearly detailed how iOS and macOS will not be merging into a single, crappy OS, but will instead continue to use underlying core code with a distinct UI and HW that defines each product category.
Again, straw man. I haven’t said they would merge iOS and MacOS. I said that they shouldn’t call an arm based desktop computer running ARM MacOS or some MacOS derivative a Mac. A point you continue to ignore and generate strawmen to argue against. They would be better calling it an Apple Compute Core or Node or something but not Mac. Clearly different product line and user expectations.
I don’t see a laptop ARM now that they have been pushing the iPad Pro so hard. Selling a $700 ARM based Air vs a $800 iPad Pro 12.9 + $170 keyboard is a bad trade.
The Mac Mini has no useful purpose in the lineup anymore.
I've been hearing this for nearly as long as the Mac mini has been out. AI had countless articles about its impending demise, and yet it's still here today. I still use one and I would gladly buy a replacement for my headless Mac server in due time (hopefully running Apple silicon).
I believe it could be replaced by an ARM SOC as you suggest, not an Intel CPU, but it won't be a Mac Mini at that point.
Why not?
Why would Apple want to keep X64 alive on the Mac Mini when they could run Mac OS X and iOS natively on ARM, as well as Windows 10, albeit as UWP.
Leave x64 for Intel CPU's and the rest of the Mac product line.
1) I don't understand what your comment has to do with my question to TS about why a Mac running Apple silicon wouldn't be a Mac mini.
Because it wouldn't run all the software the other Macs could run and cause confusion.
And? How many times has Apple had SW that didn't run on certain devices over the decades? Many dozens. Even now we're hitting a wall with 32-bit apps for Macs. Not only is this hurdle achievable and commonplace, the MAS makes it even more of a non-issue that it's ridiculous to say that Apple should never modernize their OSes because of the lame excuse of confusion. That's before we even get into all the advances to how apps are built and compiled compared to the past.
He's saying there wouldn't be any X86 instruction translation or Rosetta.
Again, and?
As such all of the x86 software would be dead unless Apple convinced a lot of software publishers to support MacOS ARM.
Bull fucking shit! My MBP apps aren't going to stop working because Apple releases an ARM-based notebook.
I dunno what a arm based desktop really buys you beyond maybe a $200 discount over a Core i5 mini.
Less cost, better performance, and longer battery life come to mind.
And it wouldn’t be a Mac. While some software might not run on old Macs there is consistency across the lineup.
This isn’t any more different than claiming it would make no difference in user confusion if Apple made the next MBA run only iOS apps.
If it runs macOS on Mac HW than it's a Mac. The CPU architecture doesn't determine that, so implying that a Mac running ARM would have to run iOS is patently wrong and frankly so absurd that I can't believe I'm having this conversation.
It’s not “Mac HW” when all the other Macs are x86 based. It’s not “MacOS” when it cant run the vast majority of MacOS software but MacOS Lite
1) It would still be a Mac, just like it was a Mac under Motorola, a Mac under PPC 32-bit, under PPC 64-bit, Intel 32-bit, and Intel 64-bit.
2) It wouldn't be macOS Lite, it would be macOS. And why keep capitalizing the 'M' in macOS? This isn't new terminology.
3) You need to get rid of this notion that Mac = Intel and iPhone = ARM.
Nope, that’s a straw man. I never said arm=iPhone just that calling a arm based computer a “Mac” when x86 macs still are dominant is a marketing mistake and causes user confusion.
But this is typical of the way you argue.
1) That's the implication with your simplistic argument and with countless others like you for years after Apple's silicon was gaining ground.
2) As previously detailed, the landscape has changed so much and Apple has prepared for this for so many year that your straw man about confusion that would force Intel to be the only architecture for the rest of the Mac's lifespan until they drop it completely for only iPhone and iPads is ridiculous. They've done amazing things with their transitions and this one is considerably better poised than any other in the history of Apple.
3) Again, you fucking saw this to be the case at WWDC this year when clearly detailed how iOS and macOS will not be merging into a single, crappy OS, but will instead continue to use underlying core code with a distinct UI and HW that defines each product category.
Still tying to udneerstandt how Apple is going to reengineer a cost effective Mac Mini, whatever the hardware, that will sell enough units..
Not seeing it.
Let me know how you saw that Apple would reengineer the Mac mini to be milled into a hollow from a single piece of solid aluminum despite being an entry-level machine, then we can talk.
Doesn’t matter. What matters is you have to sell twice as many Macs that cost $500 as $1000 Macs at the same margin to make the same money and you crater your ASPs in the process. Milling the mini out of a block of Alu-mini-um means it costs $X more and you push your lowest end to $499 vs $300 NUC. Even if X is $200 (which it isn’t) that’s worthwhile because you can position the entire product line $200 more and increase brand cachet.
Mac mini below $500 just isn’t worth the effort for Apple. What? You want them to sell a Mac mini for the same price as a base iPad? Not. Gonna. Happen.
There’s sufficient volume for iPads vs iPad Pros that doesn’t exist for Macs.
IF they can sell a bunch of $600 and up Mac minis (they don't need to match the pricing of a $300 NUC) alongside a new 32" Thunderbolt 3 Display for another $1000 (or whatever), why not? They claim to be working on displays again alongside the Pros, and in the past they've typically marketed them alongside MacBook Pros, Pros, and minis. So again, why not?
If you can still run file sharing and caching and other things on macOS (whether they kill off Server.app or not), why not offer a headless box that can sit in a closet or server rack instead of having to run file sharing off the iMac in reception? I realize this isn't a huge priority for them on its own, but mixed with other use cases, why not?
I'd buy one to replace my 2009 mini server at home. I'd buy another for our office if our 2014 mini shits the bed. I suspect a fair number of home and office/IT users would do the same even if they don't market them as servers anymore.
Remember, this email below was only 8 months ago. Do you think he (and Schiller soon after) would say anything along the lines of this without having some sort of future plan for the mini? I sure don't.
The Mac Mini has no useful purpose in the lineup anymore.
I've been hearing this for nearly as long as the Mac mini has been out. AI had countless articles about its impending demise, and yet it's still here today. I still use one and I would gladly buy a replacement for my headless Mac server in due time (hopefully running Apple silicon).
I believe it could be replaced by an ARM SOC as you suggest, not an Intel CPU, but it won't be a Mac Mini at that point.
Why not?
Why would Apple want to keep X64 alive on the Mac Mini when they could run Mac OS X and iOS natively on ARM, as well as Windows 10, albeit as UWP.
Leave x64 for Intel CPU's and the rest of the Mac product line.
1) I don't understand what your comment has to do with my question to TS about why a Mac running Apple silicon wouldn't be a Mac mini.
Because it wouldn't run all the software the other Macs could run and cause confusion.
And? How many times has Apple had SW that didn't run on certain devices over the decades? Many dozens. Even now we're hitting a wall with 32-bit apps for Macs. Not only is this hurdle achievable and commonplace, the MAS makes it even more of a non-issue that it's ridiculous to say that Apple should never modernize their OSes because of the lame excuse of confusion. That's before we even get into all the advances to how apps are built and compiled compared to the past.
He's saying there wouldn't be any X86 instruction translation or Rosetta.
Again, and?
As such all of the x86 software would be dead unless Apple convinced a lot of software publishers to support MacOS ARM.
Bull fucking shit! My MBP apps aren't going to stop working because Apple releases an ARM-based notebook.
I dunno what a arm based desktop really buys you beyond maybe a $200 discount over a Core i5 mini.
Less cost, better performance, and longer battery life come to mind.
And it wouldn’t be a Mac. While some software might not run on old Macs there is consistency across the lineup.
This isn’t any more different than claiming it would make no difference in user confusion if Apple made the next MBA run only iOS apps.
If it runs macOS on Mac HW than it's a Mac. The CPU architecture doesn't determine that, so implying that a Mac running ARM would have to run iOS is patently wrong and frankly so absurd that I can't believe I'm having this conversation.
It’s not “Mac HW” when all the other Macs are x86 based. It’s not “MacOS” when it cant run the vast majority of MacOS software but MacOS Lite
1) It would still be a Mac, just like it was a Mac under Motorola, a Mac under PPC 32-bit, under PPC 64-bit, Intel 32-bit, and Intel 64-bit.
2) It wouldn't be macOS Lite, it would be macOS. And why keep capitalizing the 'M' in macOS? This isn't new terminology.
3) You need to get rid of this notion that Mac = Intel and iPhone = ARM.
Nope, that’s a straw man. I never said arm=iPhone just that calling a arm based computer a “Mac” when x86 macs still are dominant is a marketing mistake and causes user confusion.
But this is typical of the way you argue.
1) That's the implication with your simplistic argument and with countless others like you for years after Apple's silicon was gaining ground.
2) As previously detailed, the landscape has changed so much and Apple has prepared for this for so many year that your straw man about confusion that would force Intel to be the only architecture for the rest of the Mac's lifespan until they drop it completely for only iPhone and iPads is ridiculous. They've done amazing things with their transitions and this one is considerably better poised than any other in the history of Apple.
3) Again, you fucking saw this to be the case at WWDC this year when clearly detailed how iOS and macOS will not be merging into a single, crappy OS, but will instead continue to use underlying core code with a distinct UI and HW that defines each product category.
Again, straw man. I haven’t said they would merge iOS and MacOS. I said that they shouldn’t call an arm based desktop computer running ARM MacOS or some MacOS derivative a Mac. A point you continue to ignore and generate strawmen to argue against. They would be better calling it an Apple Compute Core or Node or something but not Mac. Clearly different product line and user expectations.
I don’t see a laptop ARM now that they have been pushing the iPad Pro so hard. Selling a $700 ARM based Air vs a $800 iPad Pro 12.9 + $170 keyboard is a bad trade.
Are you just making up prices? Why would Apple start suddenly selling a brand new $700 laptop line that undercuts their other products?
The Mac Mini has no useful purpose in the lineup anymore.
I've been hearing this for nearly as long as the Mac mini has been out. AI had countless articles about its impending demise, and yet it's still here today. I still use one and I would gladly buy a replacement for my headless Mac server in due time (hopefully running Apple silicon).
I believe it could be replaced by an ARM SOC as you suggest, not an Intel CPU, but it won't be a Mac Mini at that point.
Why not?
Why would Apple want to keep X64 alive on the Mac Mini when they could run Mac OS X and iOS natively on ARM, as well as Windows 10, albeit as UWP.
Leave x64 for Intel CPU's and the rest of the Mac product line.
1) I don't understand what your comment has to do with my question to TS about why a Mac running Apple silicon wouldn't be a Mac mini.
Because it wouldn't run all the software the other Macs could run and cause confusion.
And? How many times has Apple had SW that didn't run on certain devices over the decades? Many dozens. Even now we're hitting a wall with 32-bit apps for Macs. Not only is this hurdle achievable and commonplace, the MAS makes it even more of a non-issue that it's ridiculous to say that Apple should never modernize their OSes because of the lame excuse of confusion. That's before we even get into all the advances to how apps are built and compiled compared to the past.
He's saying there wouldn't be any X86 instruction translation or Rosetta.
Again, and?
As such all of the x86 software would be dead unless Apple convinced a lot of software publishers to support MacOS ARM.
Bull fucking shit! My MBP apps aren't going to stop working because Apple releases an ARM-based notebook.
I dunno what a arm based desktop really buys you beyond maybe a $200 discount over a Core i5 mini.
Less cost, better performance, and longer battery life come to mind.
And it wouldn’t be a Mac. While some software might not run on old Macs there is consistency across the lineup.
This isn’t any more different than claiming it would make no difference in user confusion if Apple made the next MBA run only iOS apps.
If it runs macOS on Mac HW than it's a Mac. The CPU architecture doesn't determine that, so implying that a Mac running ARM would have to run iOS is patently wrong and frankly so absurd that I can't believe I'm having this conversation.
It’s not “Mac HW” when all the other Macs are x86 based. It’s not “MacOS” when it cant run the vast majority of MacOS software but MacOS Lite
1) It would still be a Mac, just like it was a Mac under Motorola, a Mac under PPC 32-bit, under PPC 64-bit, Intel 32-bit, and Intel 64-bit.
2) It wouldn't be macOS Lite, it would be macOS. And why keep capitalizing the 'M' in macOS? This isn't new terminology.
3) You need to get rid of this notion that Mac = Intel and iPhone = ARM.
Nope, that’s a straw man. I never said arm=iPhone just that calling a arm based computer a “Mac” when x86 macs still are dominant is a marketing mistake and causes user confusion.
But this is typical of the way you argue.
1) That's the implication with your simplistic argument and with countless others like you for years after Apple's silicon was gaining ground.
2) As previously detailed, the landscape has changed so much and Apple has prepared for this for so many year that your straw man about confusion that would force Intel to be the only architecture for the rest of the Mac's lifespan until they drop it completely for only iPhone and iPads is ridiculous. They've done amazing things with their transitions and this one is considerably better poised than any other in the history of Apple.
3) Again, you fucking saw this to be the case at WWDC this year when clearly detailed how iOS and macOS will not be merging into a single, crappy OS, but will instead continue to use underlying core code with a distinct UI and HW that defines each product category.
Still tying to udneerstandt how Apple is going to reengineer a cost effective Mac Mini, whatever the hardware, that will sell enough units..
Not seeing it.
Let me know how you saw that Apple would reengineer the Mac mini to be milled into a hollow from a single piece of solid aluminum despite being an entry-level machine, then we can talk.
Doesn’t matter. What matters is you have to sell twice as many Macs that cost $500 as $1000 Macs at the same margin to make the same money and you crater your ASPs in the process. Milling the mini out of a block of Alu-mini-um means it costs $X more and you push your lowest end to $499 vs $300 NUC. Even if X is $200 (which it isn’t) that’s worthwhile because you can position the entire product line $200 more and increase brand cachet.
Mac mini below $500 just isn’t worth the effort for Apple. What? You want them to sell a Mac mini for the same price as a base iPad? Not. Gonna. Happen.
There’s sufficient volume for iPads vs iPad Pros that doesn’t exist for Macs.
That's why is absolutely does matter. According to you, Apple won't do something in the future because you don't think it's worthwhile for them while you still don't understand that they've kept building it with increased engineering costs and at lower volumes in the past. If you can't explain how that works then you have no foundation in which to claim that Apple Mac lines is EOL because of some unfounded hypotheses or secret desire.
I see Macs running macOS on Apple silicon as coming. Dismiss the idea all you want but I see no other path for Apple… even without Intel having dropped the ball several times.
Another strawman. You don’t change much do you. I never said that Macs are EOL...there’s a significant need for Macs and the growing sales show that.
Intel hasn’t dropped the ball from Apple’s perspective...they have pushed performance per watt to the point you can have a very thin core i7 laptop and a Xeon based iMac Pro. Plus thunderbolt 3 and soon Optane. Ignorant folks complain that intel hasn’t been increasing performance when they have been concentrating on power usage...something Apple sees as hugely enabling for their designs.
Macs will run on ARM when they can cover the entire Mac product line. Something that Intel could do when Apple transitioned Macs from ppc and ppc could do when they transitioned from 68k.
The Mac Mini has no useful purpose in the lineup anymore.
I've been hearing this for nearly as long as the Mac mini has been out. AI had countless articles about its impending demise, and yet it's still here today. I still use one and I would gladly buy a replacement for my headless Mac server in due time (hopefully running Apple silicon).
I believe it could be replaced by an ARM SOC as you suggest, not an Intel CPU, but it won't be a Mac Mini at that point.
Why not?
Why would Apple want to keep X64 alive on the Mac Mini when they could run Mac OS X and iOS natively on ARM, as well as Windows 10, albeit as UWP.
Leave x64 for Intel CPU's and the rest of the Mac product line.
1) I don't understand what your comment has to do with my question to TS about why a Mac running Apple silicon wouldn't be a Mac mini.
Because it wouldn't run all the software the other Macs could run and cause confusion.
And? How many times has Apple had SW that didn't run on certain devices over the decades? Many dozens. Even now we're hitting a wall with 32-bit apps for Macs. Not only is this hurdle achievable and commonplace, the MAS makes it even more of a non-issue that it's ridiculous to say that Apple should never modernize their OSes because of the lame excuse of confusion. That's before we even get into all the advances to how apps are built and compiled compared to the past.
He's saying there wouldn't be any X86 instruction translation or Rosetta.
Again, and?
As such all of the x86 software would be dead unless Apple convinced a lot of software publishers to support MacOS ARM.
Bull fucking shit! My MBP apps aren't going to stop working because Apple releases an ARM-based notebook.
I dunno what a arm based desktop really buys you beyond maybe a $200 discount over a Core i5 mini.
Less cost, better performance, and longer battery life come to mind.
And it wouldn’t be a Mac. While some software might not run on old Macs there is consistency across the lineup.
This isn’t any more different than claiming it would make no difference in user confusion if Apple made the next MBA run only iOS apps.
If it runs macOS on Mac HW than it's a Mac. The CPU architecture doesn't determine that, so implying that a Mac running ARM would have to run iOS is patently wrong and frankly so absurd that I can't believe I'm having this conversation.
It’s not “Mac HW” when all the other Macs are x86 based. It’s not “MacOS” when it cant run the vast majority of MacOS software but MacOS Lite
1) It would still be a Mac, just like it was a Mac under Motorola, a Mac under PPC 32-bit, under PPC 64-bit, Intel 32-bit, and Intel 64-bit.
2) It wouldn't be macOS Lite, it would be macOS. And why keep capitalizing the 'M' in macOS? This isn't new terminology.
3) You need to get rid of this notion that Mac = Intel and iPhone = ARM.
Nope, that’s a straw man. I never said arm=iPhone just that calling a arm based computer a “Mac” when x86 macs still are dominant is a marketing mistake and causes user confusion.
But this is typical of the way you argue.
1) That's the implication with your simplistic argument and with countless others like you for years after Apple's silicon was gaining ground.
2) As previously detailed, the landscape has changed so much and Apple has prepared for this for so many year that your straw man about confusion that would force Intel to be the only architecture for the rest of the Mac's lifespan until they drop it completely for only iPhone and iPads is ridiculous. They've done amazing things with their transitions and this one is considerably better poised than any other in the history of Apple.
3) Again, you fucking saw this to be the case at WWDC this year when clearly detailed how iOS and macOS will not be merging into a single, crappy OS, but will instead continue to use underlying core code with a distinct UI and HW that defines each product category.
Again, straw man. I haven’t said they would merge iOS and MacOS. I said that they shouldn’t call an arm based desktop computer running ARM MacOS or some MacOS derivative a Mac. A point you continue to ignore and generate strawmen to argue against. They would be better calling it an Apple Compute Core or Node or something but not Mac. Clearly different product line and user expectations.
I don’t see a laptop ARM now that they have been pushing the iPad Pro so hard. Selling a $700 ARM based Air vs a $800 iPad Pro 12.9 + $170 keyboard is a bad trade.
Are you just making up prices? Why would Apple start suddenly selling a brand new $700 laptop line that undercuts their other products?
Because Soli keeps saying that a benefit of moving to ARM is lower prices. Answer: it won’t. Apple can offer less expensive iPads without impacting Mac pricing. A cheaper ARM Mac not so much. Hence my opinion that they shouldn’t or won’t call it a “Mac” and most likely won’t offer one at all.
The Mac Mini has no useful purpose in the lineup anymore.
I've been hearing this for nearly as long as the Mac mini has been out. AI had countless articles about its impending demise, and yet it's still here today. I still use one and I would gladly buy a replacement for my headless Mac server in due time (hopefully running Apple silicon).
I believe it could be replaced by an ARM SOC as you suggest, not an Intel CPU, but it won't be a Mac Mini at that point.
Why not?
Why would Apple want to keep X64 alive on the Mac Mini when they could run Mac OS X and iOS natively on ARM, as well as Windows 10, albeit as UWP.
Leave x64 for Intel CPU's and the rest of the Mac product line.
1) I don't understand what your comment has to do with my question to TS about why a Mac running Apple silicon wouldn't be a Mac mini.
Because it wouldn't run all the software the other Macs could run and cause confusion.
And? How many times has Apple had SW that didn't run on certain devices over the decades? Many dozens. Even now we're hitting a wall with 32-bit apps for Macs. Not only is this hurdle achievable and commonplace, the MAS makes it even more of a non-issue that it's ridiculous to say that Apple should never modernize their OSes because of the lame excuse of confusion. That's before we even get into all the advances to how apps are built and compiled compared to the past.
He's saying there wouldn't be any X86 instruction translation or Rosetta.
Again, and?
As such all of the x86 software would be dead unless Apple convinced a lot of software publishers to support MacOS ARM.
Bull fucking shit! My MBP apps aren't going to stop working because Apple releases an ARM-based notebook.
I dunno what a arm based desktop really buys you beyond maybe a $200 discount over a Core i5 mini.
Less cost, better performance, and longer battery life come to mind.
And it wouldn’t be a Mac. While some software might not run on old Macs there is consistency across the lineup.
This isn’t any more different than claiming it would make no difference in user confusion if Apple made the next MBA run only iOS apps.
If it runs macOS on Mac HW than it's a Mac. The CPU architecture doesn't determine that, so implying that a Mac running ARM would have to run iOS is patently wrong and frankly so absurd that I can't believe I'm having this conversation.
It’s not “Mac HW” when all the other Macs are x86 based. It’s not “MacOS” when it cant run the vast majority of MacOS software but MacOS Lite
1) It would still be a Mac, just like it was a Mac under Motorola, a Mac under PPC 32-bit, under PPC 64-bit, Intel 32-bit, and Intel 64-bit.
2) It wouldn't be macOS Lite, it would be macOS. And why keep capitalizing the 'M' in macOS? This isn't new terminology.
3) You need to get rid of this notion that Mac = Intel and iPhone = ARM.
Nope, that’s a straw man. I never said arm=iPhone just that calling a arm based computer a “Mac” when x86 macs still are dominant is a marketing mistake and causes user confusion.
But this is typical of the way you argue.
1) That's the implication with your simplistic argument and with countless others like you for years after Apple's silicon was gaining ground.
2) As previously detailed, the landscape has changed so much and Apple has prepared for this for so many year that your straw man about confusion that would force Intel to be the only architecture for the rest of the Mac's lifespan until they drop it completely for only iPhone and iPads is ridiculous. They've done amazing things with their transitions and this one is considerably better poised than any other in the history of Apple.
3) Again, you fucking saw this to be the case at WWDC this year when clearly detailed how iOS and macOS will not be merging into a single, crappy OS, but will instead continue to use underlying core code with a distinct UI and HW that defines each product category.
Still tying to udneerstandt how Apple is going to reengineer a cost effective Mac Mini, whatever the hardware, that will sell enough units..
Not seeing it.
Let me know how you saw that Apple would reengineer the Mac mini to be milled into a hollow from a single piece of solid aluminum despite being an entry-level machine, then we can talk.
Doesn’t matter. What matters is you have to sell twice as many Macs that cost $500 as $1000 Macs at the same margin to make the same money and you crater your ASPs in the process. Milling the mini out of a block of Alu-mini-um means it costs $X more and you push your lowest end to $499 vs $300 NUC. Even if X is $200 (which it isn’t) that’s worthwhile because you can position the entire product line $200 more and increase brand cachet.
Mac mini below $500 just isn’t worth the effort for Apple. What? You want them to sell a Mac mini for the same price as a base iPad? Not. Gonna. Happen.
There’s sufficient volume for iPads vs iPad Pros that doesn’t exist for Macs.
IF they can sell a bunch of $600 and up Mac minis (they don't need to match the pricing of a $300 NUC) alongside a new 32" Thunderbolt 3 Display for another $1000 (or whatever), why not? They claim to be working on displays again alongside the Pros, and in the past they've typically marketed them alongside MacBook Pros, Pros, and minis. So again, why not?
If you can still run file sharing and caching and other things on macOS (whether they kill off Server.app or not), why not offer a headless box that can sit in a closet or server rack instead of having to run file sharing off the iMac in reception? I realize this isn't a huge priority for them on its own, but mixed with other use cases, why not?
I'd buy one to replace my 2009 mini server at home. I'd buy another for our office if our 2014 mini shits the bed. I suspect a fair number of home and office/IT users would do the same even if they don't market them as servers anymore.
Remember, this email below was only 8 months ago. Do you think he (and Schiller soon after) would say anything along the lines of this without having some sort of future plan for the mini? I sure don't.
A $600 ARM based Home server would sell well. That’s essentially a Jetson TX2. The AppleTV 4K is comparable if it had 8GB RAM.
But Apple hasn’t shown any interest in doing so even internally...probably one of the biggest users of the mini is Apple itself...at least a few years ago. Presumably they don’t because it would lack Office. It is interesting that Apple doesn’t provide Pages, Numbers, Keynote, Safari, etc on AppleTV when they have iOS versions.
The Mac Mini has no useful purpose in the lineup anymore.
I've been hearing this for nearly as long as the Mac mini has been out. AI had countless articles about its impending demise, and yet it's still here today. I still use one and I would gladly buy a replacement for my headless Mac server in due time (hopefully running Apple silicon).
I believe it could be replaced by an ARM SOC as you suggest, not an Intel CPU, but it won't be a Mac Mini at that point.
Why not?
Why would Apple want to keep X64 alive on the Mac Mini when they could run Mac OS X and iOS natively on ARM, as well as Windows 10, albeit as UWP.
Leave x64 for Intel CPU's and the rest of the Mac product line.
1) I don't understand what your comment has to do with my question to TS about why a Mac running Apple silicon wouldn't be a Mac mini.
Because it wouldn't run all the software the other Macs could run and cause confusion.
And? How many times has Apple had SW that didn't run on certain devices over the decades? Many dozens. Even now we're hitting a wall with 32-bit apps for Macs. Not only is this hurdle achievable and commonplace, the MAS makes it even more of a non-issue that it's ridiculous to say that Apple should never modernize their OSes because of the lame excuse of confusion. That's before we even get into all the advances to how apps are built and compiled compared to the past.
He's saying there wouldn't be any X86 instruction translation or Rosetta.
Again, and?
As such all of the x86 software would be dead unless Apple convinced a lot of software publishers to support MacOS ARM.
Bull fucking shit! My MBP apps aren't going to stop working because Apple releases an ARM-based notebook.
I dunno what a arm based desktop really buys you beyond maybe a $200 discount over a Core i5 mini.
Less cost, better performance, and longer battery life come to mind.
And it wouldn’t be a Mac. While some software might not run on old Macs there is consistency across the lineup.
This isn’t any more different than claiming it would make no difference in user confusion if Apple made the next MBA run only iOS apps.
If it runs macOS on Mac HW than it's a Mac. The CPU architecture doesn't determine that, so implying that a Mac running ARM would have to run iOS is patently wrong and frankly so absurd that I can't believe I'm having this conversation.
It’s not “Mac HW” when all the other Macs are x86 based. It’s not “MacOS” when it cant run the vast majority of MacOS software but MacOS Lite
1) It would still be a Mac, just like it was a Mac under Motorola, a Mac under PPC 32-bit, under PPC 64-bit, Intel 32-bit, and Intel 64-bit.
2) It wouldn't be macOS Lite, it would be macOS. And why keep capitalizing the 'M' in macOS? This isn't new terminology.
3) You need to get rid of this notion that Mac = Intel and iPhone = ARM.
Nope, that’s a straw man. I never said arm=iPhone just that calling a arm based computer a “Mac” when x86 macs still are dominant is a marketing mistake and causes user confusion.
But this is typical of the way you argue.
1) That's the implication with your simplistic argument and with countless others like you for years after Apple's silicon was gaining ground.
2) As previously detailed, the landscape has changed so much and Apple has prepared for this for so many year that your straw man about confusion that would force Intel to be the only architecture for the rest of the Mac's lifespan until they drop it completely for only iPhone and iPads is ridiculous. They've done amazing things with their transitions and this one is considerably better poised than any other in the history of Apple.
3) Again, you fucking saw this to be the case at WWDC this year when clearly detailed how iOS and macOS will not be merging into a single, crappy OS, but will instead continue to use underlying core code with a distinct UI and HW that defines each product category.
Again, straw man. I haven’t said they would merge iOS and MacOS. I said that they shouldn’t call an arm based desktop computer running ARM MacOS or some MacOS derivative a Mac. A point you continue to ignore and generate strawmen to argue against. They would be better calling it an Apple Compute Core or Node or something but not Mac. Clearly different product line and user expectations.
I don’t see a laptop ARM now that they have been pushing the iPad Pro so hard. Selling a $700 ARM based Air vs a $800 iPad Pro 12.9 + $170 keyboard is a bad trade.
Are you just making up prices? Why would Apple start suddenly selling a brand new $700 laptop line that undercuts their other products?
Because Soli keeps saying that a benefit of moving to ARM is lower prices. Answer: it won’t. Apple can offer less expensive iPads without impacting Mac pricing. A cheaper ARM Mac not so much. Hence my opinion that they shouldn’t or won’t call it a “Mac” and most likely won’t offer one at all.
1) The cost of an Apple-made ARM SoC compared to an Intel CPU is one benefit of many.
2) Your claims that it can't be a Mac despite it being Mac HW running macOS is weird AF. I'd ask again where you got this notion that using ARM for the CPU means it can't be a Mac, but I doubt you'll have a rational answer on this tenth attempt.
Are you just making up prices? Why would Apple start suddenly selling a brand new $700 laptop line that undercuts their other products?
Because Soli keeps saying that a benefit of moving to ARM is lower prices. Answer: it won’t. Apple can offer less expensive iPads without impacting Mac pricing. A cheaper ARM Mac not so much. Hence my opinion that they shouldn’t or won’t call it a “Mac” and most likely won’t offer one at all.
1) The cost of an Apple-made ARM SoC compared to an Intel CPU is one benefit of many.
2) Your claims that it can't be a Mac despite it being Mac HW running macOS is weird AF. I'd ask again where you got this notion that using ARM for the CPU means it can't be a Mac, but I doubt you'll have a rational answer on this tenth attempt.
Strawman. They CAN call it a Mac but it would result in the same confusion as the windows RT. That's been my same point throughout.
Also the hardware wouldn’t be consistent across the lineup which was the case in prior Mac processor transitions which is another reason they wouldn't likely transition a part of the Mac lineup to ARM.
What is weird AF is your inability to discuss things that people say as opposed to what you want/think them to say despite being spelled out repeatedly.
Cost is the primary benefit of ARM. For the same workload Intel performance per watt as a system is on par...ahead in some areas, behind in some areas. Where ARM can't touch Intel yet is the high end load. If you look at the recent server benchmarks (and sales information) the ARM servers are targeted to specific areas and intended to compete with Phi and GPUs according to the product literature.
For general compute the x86 has a bunch more silicon allocated to AVX and more design into OOE. The A11 is a beefy ARM but I'm not sure they implemented everything like virtualization. Neither ISA has any particular advantage so it's just down to focus, experience and desire. There still isn't any benefit, other than cost, for Apple to switch to ARM for Macs...especially since they can't transition the entire line up at one time. The iPad Pro is the answer for mobile and there doesn't appear to be any significant need for answer in the desktop space as they could literally deliver one tomorrow if they wanted.
Comments
It’s not “MacOS” when it cant run the vast majority of MacOS software but MacOS Lite with maybe a slow emulation available on the equivalent of a low end dual core i5 Mac.
It’s a terrible idea to call it a mac.
I would call it Apple Home Server or something and not a Mac.
But it the fact is it wouldn’t have a lot of software ported over. Less cost is not a benefit to Apple. An ARM based small form factor desktop would cost at least as much as a current Mini and highly unlikely to run as fast as an iPad Pro because why would Apple want to sell a $499 computer instead of a $1000 computer?
Any ARM based desktop would be the mini to the iPad Pro’s iMac. It’s almost always more cost effective to buy an iMac. It’s also why the mini has languished.
The difference between MacOS and TvOS and iOS is a bit of UI code. If Apple wanted to make an ARM based Mini it would add some flash and RAM to the aTV 4K and load MacOS on it. Maybe put the A11X in it if it’s ready.
Not likely at all to happen since what I just stated is trivial technically but detrimental to Apples product lineup.
2) It wouldn't be macOS Lite, it would be macOS. And why keep capitalizing the 'M' in macOS? This isn't new terminology.
3) You need to get rid of this notion that Mac = Intel and iPhone = ARM.
PS: It reminds me when people said Apple would never use OLED for the Watch and then for the iPhone because they kept saying that was for Samsung and other companies to use. It weird a stance to draw these technology lines in the sand that ignore the very essence of what makes Apple products so great.
But this is typical of the way you argue.
2) As previously detailed, the landscape has changed so much and Apple has prepared for this for so many year that your straw man about confusion that would force Intel to be the only architecture for the rest of the Mac's lifespan until they drop it completely for only iPhone and iPads is ridiculous. They've done amazing things with their transitions and this one is considerably better poised than any other in the history of Apple.
3) Again, you fucking saw this to be the case at WWDC this year when clearly detailed how iOS and macOS will not be merging into a single, crappy OS, but will instead continue to use underlying core code with a distinct UI and HW that defines each product category.
Not seeing it.
Mac mini below $500 just isn’t worth the effort for Apple. What? You want them to sell a Mac mini for the same price as a base iPad? Not. Gonna. Happen.
There’s sufficient volume for iPads vs iPad Pros that doesn’t exist for Macs.
I see Macs running macOS on Apple silicon as coming. Dismiss the idea all you want but I see no other path for Apple… even without Intel having dropped the ball several times.
Uhm, being a Mechanical Engineer and a machinist, it wouldn't be out of question to actually do that, but in truth, I would never argue to build another Mac Mini.
Still wanna talk?
How about giving up on your dream with the realization that the Mac Mini is better off dead, and at best, reincarnated as a media server / home theater hub?
I don’t see a laptop ARM now that they have been pushing the iPad Pro so hard. Selling a $700 ARM based Air vs a $800 iPad Pro 12.9 + $170 keyboard is a bad trade.
Has a nice ring to it!
If you can still run file sharing and caching and other things on macOS (whether they kill off Server.app or not), why not offer a headless box that can sit in a closet or server rack instead of having to run file sharing off the iMac in reception? I realize this isn't a huge priority for them on its own, but mixed with other use cases, why not?
I'd buy one to replace my 2009 mini server at home. I'd buy another for our office if our 2014 mini shits the bed. I suspect a fair number of home and office/IT users would do the same even if they don't market them as servers anymore.
Remember, this email below was only 8 months ago. Do you think he (and Schiller soon after) would say anything along the lines of this without having some sort of future plan for the mini? I sure don't.
Intel hasn’t dropped the ball from Apple’s perspective...they have pushed performance per watt to the point you can have a very thin core i7 laptop and a Xeon based iMac Pro. Plus thunderbolt 3 and soon Optane. Ignorant folks complain that intel hasn’t been increasing performance when they have been concentrating on power usage...something Apple sees as hugely enabling for their designs.
Macs will run on ARM when they can cover the entire Mac product line. Something that Intel could do when Apple transitioned Macs from ppc and ppc could do when they transitioned from 68k.
A $600 ARM based Home server would sell well. That’s essentially a Jetson TX2. The AppleTV 4K is comparable if it had 8GB RAM.
But Apple hasn’t shown any interest in doing so even internally...probably one of the biggest users of the mini is Apple itself...at least a few years ago. Presumably they don’t because it would lack Office. It is interesting that Apple doesn’t provide Pages, Numbers, Keynote, Safari, etc on AppleTV when they have iOS versions.
2) Your claims that it can't be a Mac despite it being Mac HW running macOS is weird AF. I'd ask again where you got this notion that using ARM for the CPU means it can't be a Mac, but I doubt you'll have a rational answer on this tenth attempt.
Also the hardware wouldn’t be consistent across the lineup which was the case in prior Mac processor transitions which is another reason they wouldn't likely transition a part of the Mac lineup to ARM.
What is weird AF is your inability to discuss things that people say as opposed to what you want/think them to say despite being spelled out repeatedly.
Cost is the primary benefit of ARM. For the same workload Intel performance per watt as a system is on par...ahead in some areas, behind in some areas. Where ARM can't touch Intel yet is the high end load. If you look at the recent server benchmarks (and sales information) the ARM servers are targeted to specific areas and intended to compete with Phi and GPUs according to the product literature.
For general compute the x86 has a bunch more silicon allocated to AVX and more design into OOE. The A11 is a beefy ARM but I'm not sure they implemented everything like virtualization. Neither ISA has any particular advantage so it's just down to focus, experience and desire. There still isn't any benefit, other than cost, for Apple to switch to ARM for Macs...especially since they can't transition the entire line up at one time. The iPad Pro is the answer for mobile and there doesn't appear to be any significant need for answer in the desktop space as they could literally deliver one tomorrow if they wanted.