Editorial: Apple's move to ARM is possible because most users want power more than compati...

123457

Comments

  • Reply 121 of 154
    esummersesummers Posts: 910member
    Most Parallels business users could probably move to Parallels RAS (run Windows on a server in the cloud) if Apple releases ARM-based Macs.  Currently only cost effective with at least a couple dozen Macs, but Parallels may better tailer this product for individuals that are unable to run Parallels Desktop.
  • Reply 122 of 154
    esummersesummers Posts: 910member
    jeremy c said:
    @damk, agreed. There are linux tools that a lot of us use in macOS that would require porting over to ARM from x86.
    I doubt there is much software that would need more then a recompile.  Most Linux software (even those with VMs or JIT compilation like Docker or Node) already run on Raspberry Pi or Ubuntu ARM64.
  • Reply 123 of 154
    cat52cat52 Posts: 38member

    I agree with Gallagher… For many years I needed Windows compatibility, so I actually did own one of those DOS compatible Quadra 610’s mentioned in the article back in the day…. 

    However over the years I’ve always been on the lookout for applications which are either Mac only or else whose developers put the Mac first.  For instance long ago I switched from Photoshop to Pixelmator, and more recently to Affinity Photo as well.

    Today then, my Mac still does have Boot Camp installed, however my next Mac will no longer have any need for Windows compatibility as I’ve finally found macOS replacements for all that old Windows software.

    So if Apple wishes to switch to ARM, and the performance is better than Intel, then I’ll be first in line to buy one.

  • Reply 124 of 154
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,895member
    melgross said:
    nht said:
    nht said:
    nht said:
    nht said:
    nht said:

    nht said:
    wallym said:
    As a developer, I need both mac and windows support.  To openly campaign to remove Windows compat is to be irresponsible to the marketplace.  If users don't need Windows, that's fine.  Don't penalize me for your lack of needs.
    I don't think you, nor FredFref read the article.
    Why does a dissenting opinion mean they didn't read the article?  Maybe they read, disagreed with the basic premise "cross-platform software compatibility is now mostly irrelevant to the wider user base" and everything that follows.  Especially since you had a poll, found 35% that said, yes they needed windows and then proceeded to hand wave that away as AI readers aren't a representative sample.  Which begs the question of WHY RUN THE POLL IN THE FIRST PLACE?

    The next assertion "for Apple's biggest user base, the need for Windows compatibility isn't the same as it is for the main readers of this site" is fabricated out of thin air and has zero supporting data.  Whether true or not it's based on nothing but speculation.

    If the primary uses of the Macs are Pro and everyone else migrates to iPads then a significant fraction of Mac users (dare I say 35%) will want x86 compatibility.

    But, nope...because they disagree they didn't read the article.
    That's not why I said that, and you know it. And, there's a lot more to this quote of mine than what you clipped out. And, I didn't even say anything about the ludicrous assumption that this article is a "campaign" to remove Windows compatibility.

    It wasn't handwaved away. What it is, is that 35% of the user base that reads AI doesn't need it, which is an overly conservative estimate of what the larger user base needs and does with their machines, and you know this as well, based on your own interactions with the rest of the AI readership. And, even if you translate it literally, it does mean that the majority doesn't care about Windows on the Mac.
    Why run the poll and then disregard it?  So what if 35% isn't the majority?  It's still a large part of the user base.   

    And how do you know that it is "an overly conservative estimate of what the larger user base needs"?  On what data is this assertion based on?  Why do you assume that the majority of your readers are pros?  Why did you not include in your survey to self identify if they were pros or just general users?  Never mind that these polls are generally horridly misleading anyway.

    The article, and you, would like to make it seem like it's 0.35% of the user base to sell the idea that x86 compatibility is no longer needed.  Apple may have a good idea as to the number but you don't.  Moreover you ignored the entire enterprise market because it's inconvenient.  Does IBM and other major Mac deployments believe x86 compatibility is irrelevant?  I have no idea and neither do you.  It would have been fairly easy to reach out to IT folks highlighted in past articles and ask "hey, is x86 compatibility important to your Mac enterprise deployment?"

    Nope.

    But hey...35% is an overly conservative estimate of what the larger user base needs...
    Regarding the bolded section, we are, and your own supposition of how that is going so far is wrong because what they care about so far is iOS development and general productivity. We'll see how it goes in total when we're done.

    In regards to our audience, exactly who do you think AppleInsider is read by far, far more? College grads with advanced degrees, industry folk, designers and whatnot, or the "new Apple user" which is iOS centric, where the iPhone is a halo for the Mac and not the other way around?
    And the demographics for Mac users are what?  Gee maybe folks who are "college grads with advanced degrees, industry folk, designers and whatnot"?  

    Nah.

    I will assert, based on personal experience, that there are very few enterprise iOS developers that don't care about MS project, DOORS and a bevy of windows/x86 corporate tools...still dependent on Excel with macros.  People send me a lot of stuff in Visio to boot.  Also, most of us aren't iOS developers but enterprise developers and the docker tool chain is a significant part of devops.
    Yeah. we're not done. So far, we've spoken to IBM, Cisco, and Deloitte. There are about eight more on the docket. The point of this article, stands, though, that there is a line, where below it, the need for Windows is non-existent.
    And you have failed to show where that line is.  Again, is the AI demographic you just stated significantly different than that of Mac users?  Or have most of the "new Apple users" that don't frequent AI already moved to the iPad or never bought a Mac in the first place and have a windows laptop somewhere?
    I'm not really sure what you're asking, here.

    We didn't set out to draw precisely where the line is, so there is no failure to show something that we didn't set out to show. The piece is more to remind folks that there is a line, even though that there is the assumption that Windows compatibility is everything to everybody. We were pretty clear in the end of the piece in regards to the Mac Pro maybe never shifting.

    Who do you think reads AI? Do you not think it's primarily Apple devout for decades? William addresses this in the piece, somewhat, in regards to who reads AI. Who reads AI  should be apparent from the forums at least. Based on what we know, the "average" AI reader has been in the Apple ecosystem for well over a decade, is pretty heavily technologically savvy, has many Apple devices and has for ages, well before the iPhone 3gs, iPad, and iPhone 6 explosions in Apple user volume.

    If we could tap into 1% of the "new" Apple customer, we'd be sitting on a gold mine. Most of the new Apple users bought an iPhone and have just that so aren't relevant to this particular conversation, or got an iPhone or iPad and said "hey, this Mac thing might be pretty great" rather than the other way around like it was a decade ago.
    This is the point.  The article (and you) argues that the poll results are irrelevant (ie "overly conservative") because it does not represent the "larger user base needs".  I argue that the AI demographic more closely matches that of Mac users than the larger "new Apple users" and therefore not necessarily "overly conservative".

    If around a third of the prospective user base needs a feature it sure as hell isn't a minor feature.  There isn't any "assumption that Windows compatibility is everything to everybody" but that a significant part of the Mac user base (say closer to 35% than 3.5%) wants that feature.

    There is nothing an ARM based Mac does that an ARM based iPad Pro couldn't do with a couple further tweaks to iOS.

    So why go through the disruption of a significant processor change and leave the Mac lineup half Intel and half ARM?
    We didn't say they were irrelevant, and I'm not sure why you keep saying that. What they are is overly tilted in favor of virtualization and windows compatibility given what we know about who reads and interacts with AppleInsider. And, even given that, the majority still isn't doing it, and it isn't close.

    At no point are we saying that there won't be disruption.

    And as far as why do it? You just have to look to the last two major Mac processor shifts -- Vendors not delivering what they promise. 
    Again, how do you know the poll is “overly tilted in favor of virtualization and windows compatibility“ when those that read AI tend NOT to be the “new Apple” crowd and more of the “old Apple” crowd that owns more than just iOS devices?  In other words the AI demographic more closely matches the Mac demographic than it does the “new Apple” demographic.

    You keep harping on “majority” and trying to avoid admitting that 35% is significant enough percentage to warrant keeping that feature.  Which is why you want to call 35% results to be “overly tilted”.  

    While intel faltered on 10nm it looks like Ice Lake will finally fulfill those promises and Intel has steadily improved power per watt on 14nm.  Further it seems that Intel has been fairly responsive to Apple and my guess is that the customer that requested lakefiejld processor (bigLittle) from Intel was Apple.  Or they will apply Foveros to stack something like T2 with Intel cores to reduce footprint.

    Intel had a bad few years...just like with Itanium.  It’s fashionable to bag on Intel right now and who knows maybe the new Ice Lakes won’t hit 18% IPC improvements.  I’m guessing Intel is back on track
    I've already addressed this in some depth, but here it is again: The AI demo is the high end, tech savvy part of the Mac market. You know, the part of the Mac market that knows that the feature exists, and has the aptitude and/or need to do so. The numbers are right in front of you. If 2/3 of the tech savvy users don't use it, do you honestly think that the new Apple users do in a higher percentage, or even the same? 100% of the Mac using population used USB-A when the 2016 MacBook Pro came out, and Apple shifted anyway. 100% of Mac users used ADB before the iMac, and Apple shifted anyway. Do you think that 35% is going to slow them down on a shift that they want to make to not be beholden to Intel?

    Intel hasn't had a "bad few years." It's had a bad 2011-2019 and 10nm is literally, three years late. For the last eight years, it hasn't set a deadline for release that it's made. It was less time in 94, and in 06 where deadlines weren't being met when the other shifts were made.

    We don't get to say what Apple keeps and what doesn't, and this still isn't some kind of pitch for Apple to do so. It is an observation about why it probably will. There are enough signposts on the road that an ARM Mac is coming. You're welcome to ignore them at your leisure.

    Look, I get that you don't like it. I get that you don't want to see it. I get that you use it, and 35% of the AI demo does. I use it. But, none of that matters to Apple one bit, and you know it.
    You’re ignoring a number of things. As I mentioned in a post that hasn’t been answered, a lot of Mac users boot into Windows because of games. That’s not a trivial number. It can easily account for a large part of that 35%. Not everyone who does something is tech savvy. Installing Windows isn’t that hard.

    maybe there are signposts, and maybe it’s just a desire to see signposts. We don’t know.

    if Apple doesn’t care, then why do they do it, and why do they maintain it?
    They don't do a lot of maintenance on Boot Camp, because the thermal characteristics on the MacBook Pro running Windows are pretty bad. Also, until the hardware changed, the 13-inch MacBook Pro couldn't use an eGPU in it either.

    Apple cares about what it wants to care about, The whims change, and have always done so.

    And no, we aren't ignoring that. It isn't hard to do so, but there are technical hurdles, not the least of which is Windows not being free.
    Still, they always do what they have to to keep it compatible, and a lot of people use it. People who game don’t care about the cost of Windows.
  • Reply 125 of 154
    SoliSoli Posts: 9,270member
    melgross said:
    They don't do a lot of maintenance on Boot Camp, because the thermal characteristics on the MacBook Pro running Windows are pretty bad. Also, until the hardware changed, the 13-inch MacBook Pro couldn't use an eGPU in it either.

    Apple cares about what it wants to care about, The whims change, and have always done so.

    And no, we aren't ignoring that. It isn't hard to do so, but there are technical hurdles, not the least of which is Windows not being free.
    Still, they always do what they have to to keep it compatible, and a lot of people use it. People who game don’t care about the cost of Windows.
    WinPC gamers care about Macs, much less lower-end Mac notebooks? That's news to me.
    edited June 23
  • Reply 126 of 154
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 4,876administrator
    melgross said:
    melgross said:
    nht said:
    nht said:
    nht said:
    nht said:
    nht said:

    nht said:
    wallym said:
    As a developer, I need both mac and windows support.  To openly campaign to remove Windows compat is to be irresponsible to the marketplace.  If users don't need Windows, that's fine.  Don't penalize me for your lack of needs.
    I don't think you, nor FredFref read the article.
    Why does a dissenting opinion mean they didn't read the article?  Maybe they read, disagreed with the basic premise "cross-platform software compatibility is now mostly irrelevant to the wider user base" and everything that follows.  Especially since you had a poll, found 35% that said, yes they needed windows and then proceeded to hand wave that away as AI readers aren't a representative sample.  Which begs the question of WHY RUN THE POLL IN THE FIRST PLACE?

    The next assertion "for Apple's biggest user base, the need for Windows compatibility isn't the same as it is for the main readers of this site" is fabricated out of thin air and has zero supporting data.  Whether true or not it's based on nothing but speculation.

    If the primary uses of the Macs are Pro and everyone else migrates to iPads then a significant fraction of Mac users (dare I say 35%) will want x86 compatibility.

    But, nope...because they disagree they didn't read the article.
    That's not why I said that, and you know it. And, there's a lot more to this quote of mine than what you clipped out. And, I didn't even say anything about the ludicrous assumption that this article is a "campaign" to remove Windows compatibility.

    It wasn't handwaved away. What it is, is that 35% of the user base that reads AI doesn't need it, which is an overly conservative estimate of what the larger user base needs and does with their machines, and you know this as well, based on your own interactions with the rest of the AI readership. And, even if you translate it literally, it does mean that the majority doesn't care about Windows on the Mac.
    Why run the poll and then disregard it?  So what if 35% isn't the majority?  It's still a large part of the user base.   

    And how do you know that it is "an overly conservative estimate of what the larger user base needs"?  On what data is this assertion based on?  Why do you assume that the majority of your readers are pros?  Why did you not include in your survey to self identify if they were pros or just general users?  Never mind that these polls are generally horridly misleading anyway.

    The article, and you, would like to make it seem like it's 0.35% of the user base to sell the idea that x86 compatibility is no longer needed.  Apple may have a good idea as to the number but you don't.  Moreover you ignored the entire enterprise market because it's inconvenient.  Does IBM and other major Mac deployments believe x86 compatibility is irrelevant?  I have no idea and neither do you.  It would have been fairly easy to reach out to IT folks highlighted in past articles and ask "hey, is x86 compatibility important to your Mac enterprise deployment?"

    Nope.

    But hey...35% is an overly conservative estimate of what the larger user base needs...
    Regarding the bolded section, we are, and your own supposition of how that is going so far is wrong because what they care about so far is iOS development and general productivity. We'll see how it goes in total when we're done.

    In regards to our audience, exactly who do you think AppleInsider is read by far, far more? College grads with advanced degrees, industry folk, designers and whatnot, or the "new Apple user" which is iOS centric, where the iPhone is a halo for the Mac and not the other way around?
    And the demographics for Mac users are what?  Gee maybe folks who are "college grads with advanced degrees, industry folk, designers and whatnot"?  

    Nah.

    I will assert, based on personal experience, that there are very few enterprise iOS developers that don't care about MS project, DOORS and a bevy of windows/x86 corporate tools...still dependent on Excel with macros.  People send me a lot of stuff in Visio to boot.  Also, most of us aren't iOS developers but enterprise developers and the docker tool chain is a significant part of devops.
    Yeah. we're not done. So far, we've spoken to IBM, Cisco, and Deloitte. There are about eight more on the docket. The point of this article, stands, though, that there is a line, where below it, the need for Windows is non-existent.
    And you have failed to show where that line is.  Again, is the AI demographic you just stated significantly different than that of Mac users?  Or have most of the "new Apple users" that don't frequent AI already moved to the iPad or never bought a Mac in the first place and have a windows laptop somewhere?
    I'm not really sure what you're asking, here.

    We didn't set out to draw precisely where the line is, so there is no failure to show something that we didn't set out to show. The piece is more to remind folks that there is a line, even though that there is the assumption that Windows compatibility is everything to everybody. We were pretty clear in the end of the piece in regards to the Mac Pro maybe never shifting.

    Who do you think reads AI? Do you not think it's primarily Apple devout for decades? William addresses this in the piece, somewhat, in regards to who reads AI. Who reads AI  should be apparent from the forums at least. Based on what we know, the "average" AI reader has been in the Apple ecosystem for well over a decade, is pretty heavily technologically savvy, has many Apple devices and has for ages, well before the iPhone 3gs, iPad, and iPhone 6 explosions in Apple user volume.

    If we could tap into 1% of the "new" Apple customer, we'd be sitting on a gold mine. Most of the new Apple users bought an iPhone and have just that so aren't relevant to this particular conversation, or got an iPhone or iPad and said "hey, this Mac thing might be pretty great" rather than the other way around like it was a decade ago.
    This is the point.  The article (and you) argues that the poll results are irrelevant (ie "overly conservative") because it does not represent the "larger user base needs".  I argue that the AI demographic more closely matches that of Mac users than the larger "new Apple users" and therefore not necessarily "overly conservative".

    If around a third of the prospective user base needs a feature it sure as hell isn't a minor feature.  There isn't any "assumption that Windows compatibility is everything to everybody" but that a significant part of the Mac user base (say closer to 35% than 3.5%) wants that feature.

    There is nothing an ARM based Mac does that an ARM based iPad Pro couldn't do with a couple further tweaks to iOS.

    So why go through the disruption of a significant processor change and leave the Mac lineup half Intel and half ARM?
    We didn't say they were irrelevant, and I'm not sure why you keep saying that. What they are is overly tilted in favor of virtualization and windows compatibility given what we know about who reads and interacts with AppleInsider. And, even given that, the majority still isn't doing it, and it isn't close.

    At no point are we saying that there won't be disruption.

    And as far as why do it? You just have to look to the last two major Mac processor shifts -- Vendors not delivering what they promise. 
    Again, how do you know the poll is “overly tilted in favor of virtualization and windows compatibility“ when those that read AI tend NOT to be the “new Apple” crowd and more of the “old Apple” crowd that owns more than just iOS devices?  In other words the AI demographic more closely matches the Mac demographic than it does the “new Apple” demographic.

    You keep harping on “majority” and trying to avoid admitting that 35% is significant enough percentage to warrant keeping that feature.  Which is why you want to call 35% results to be “overly tilted”.  

    While intel faltered on 10nm it looks like Ice Lake will finally fulfill those promises and Intel has steadily improved power per watt on 14nm.  Further it seems that Intel has been fairly responsive to Apple and my guess is that the customer that requested lakefiejld processor (bigLittle) from Intel was Apple.  Or they will apply Foveros to stack something like T2 with Intel cores to reduce footprint.

    Intel had a bad few years...just like with Itanium.  It’s fashionable to bag on Intel right now and who knows maybe the new Ice Lakes won’t hit 18% IPC improvements.  I’m guessing Intel is back on track
    I've already addressed this in some depth, but here it is again: The AI demo is the high end, tech savvy part of the Mac market. You know, the part of the Mac market that knows that the feature exists, and has the aptitude and/or need to do so. The numbers are right in front of you. If 2/3 of the tech savvy users don't use it, do you honestly think that the new Apple users do in a higher percentage, or even the same? 100% of the Mac using population used USB-A when the 2016 MacBook Pro came out, and Apple shifted anyway. 100% of Mac users used ADB before the iMac, and Apple shifted anyway. Do you think that 35% is going to slow them down on a shift that they want to make to not be beholden to Intel?

    Intel hasn't had a "bad few years." It's had a bad 2011-2019 and 10nm is literally, three years late. For the last eight years, it hasn't set a deadline for release that it's made. It was less time in 94, and in 06 where deadlines weren't being met when the other shifts were made.

    We don't get to say what Apple keeps and what doesn't, and this still isn't some kind of pitch for Apple to do so. It is an observation about why it probably will. There are enough signposts on the road that an ARM Mac is coming. You're welcome to ignore them at your leisure.

    Look, I get that you don't like it. I get that you don't want to see it. I get that you use it, and 35% of the AI demo does. I use it. But, none of that matters to Apple one bit, and you know it.
    You’re ignoring a number of things. As I mentioned in a post that hasn’t been answered, a lot of Mac users boot into Windows because of games. That’s not a trivial number. It can easily account for a large part of that 35%. Not everyone who does something is tech savvy. Installing Windows isn’t that hard.

    maybe there are signposts, and maybe it’s just a desire to see signposts. We don’t know.

    if Apple doesn’t care, then why do they do it, and why do they maintain it?
    They don't do a lot of maintenance on Boot Camp, because the thermal characteristics on the MacBook Pro running Windows are pretty bad. Also, until the hardware changed, the 13-inch MacBook Pro couldn't use an eGPU in it either.

    Apple cares about what it wants to care about, The whims change, and have always done so.

    And no, we aren't ignoring that. It isn't hard to do so, but there are technical hurdles, not the least of which is Windows not being free.
    Still, they always do what they have to to keep it compatible, and a lot of people use it. People who game don’t care about the cost of Windows.
    People who game don't buy a MacBook, MBA, or MacBook Pro to do so.
  • Reply 127 of 154
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,895member
    Soli said:
    melgross said:
    They don't do a lot of maintenance on Boot Camp, because the thermal characteristics on the MacBook Pro running Windows are pretty bad. Also, until the hardware changed, the 13-inch MacBook Pro couldn't use an eGPU in it either.

    Apple cares about what it wants to care about, The whims change, and have always done so.

    And no, we aren't ignoring that. It isn't hard to do so, but there are technical hurdles, not the least of which is Windows not being free.
    Still, they always do what they have to to keep it compatible, and a lot of people use it. People who game don’t care about the cost of Windows.
    WinPC gamers care about Macs, much less lower-end Mac notebooks? That's news to me.
    You’re getting it backwards. Mac users who want to play games install Windows in Bootcamp for that purpose.
  • Reply 128 of 154
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,895member
    melgross said:
    melgross said:
    nht said:
    nht said:
    nht said:
    nht said:
    nht said:

    nht said:
    wallym said:
    As a developer, I need both mac and windows support.  To openly campaign to remove Windows compat is to be irresponsible to the marketplace.  If users don't need Windows, that's fine.  Don't penalize me for your lack of needs.
    I don't think you, nor FredFref read the article.
    Why does a dissenting opinion mean they didn't read the article?  Maybe they read, disagreed with the basic premise "cross-platform software compatibility is now mostly irrelevant to the wider user base" and everything that follows.  Especially since you had a poll, found 35% that said, yes they needed windows and then proceeded to hand wave that away as AI readers aren't a representative sample.  Which begs the question of WHY RUN THE POLL IN THE FIRST PLACE?

    The next assertion "for Apple's biggest user base, the need for Windows compatibility isn't the same as it is for the main readers of this site" is fabricated out of thin air and has zero supporting data.  Whether true or not it's based on nothing but speculation.

    If the primary uses of the Macs are Pro and everyone else migrates to iPads then a significant fraction of Mac users (dare I say 35%) will want x86 compatibility.

    But, nope...because they disagree they didn't read the article.
    That's not why I said that, and you know it. And, there's a lot more to this quote of mine than what you clipped out. And, I didn't even say anything about the ludicrous assumption that this article is a "campaign" to remove Windows compatibility.

    It wasn't handwaved away. What it is, is that 35% of the user base that reads AI doesn't need it, which is an overly conservative estimate of what the larger user base needs and does with their machines, and you know this as well, based on your own interactions with the rest of the AI readership. And, even if you translate it literally, it does mean that the majority doesn't care about Windows on the Mac.
    Why run the poll and then disregard it?  So what if 35% isn't the majority?  It's still a large part of the user base.   

    And how do you know that it is "an overly conservative estimate of what the larger user base needs"?  On what data is this assertion based on?  Why do you assume that the majority of your readers are pros?  Why did you not include in your survey to self identify if they were pros or just general users?  Never mind that these polls are generally horridly misleading anyway.

    The article, and you, would like to make it seem like it's 0.35% of the user base to sell the idea that x86 compatibility is no longer needed.  Apple may have a good idea as to the number but you don't.  Moreover you ignored the entire enterprise market because it's inconvenient.  Does IBM and other major Mac deployments believe x86 compatibility is irrelevant?  I have no idea and neither do you.  It would have been fairly easy to reach out to IT folks highlighted in past articles and ask "hey, is x86 compatibility important to your Mac enterprise deployment?"

    Nope.

    But hey...35% is an overly conservative estimate of what the larger user base needs...
    Regarding the bolded section, we are, and your own supposition of how that is going so far is wrong because what they care about so far is iOS development and general productivity. We'll see how it goes in total when we're done.

    In regards to our audience, exactly who do you think AppleInsider is read by far, far more? College grads with advanced degrees, industry folk, designers and whatnot, or the "new Apple user" which is iOS centric, where the iPhone is a halo for the Mac and not the other way around?
    And the demographics for Mac users are what?  Gee maybe folks who are "college grads with advanced degrees, industry folk, designers and whatnot"?  

    Nah.

    I will assert, based on personal experience, that there are very few enterprise iOS developers that don't care about MS project, DOORS and a bevy of windows/x86 corporate tools...still dependent on Excel with macros.  People send me a lot of stuff in Visio to boot.  Also, most of us aren't iOS developers but enterprise developers and the docker tool chain is a significant part of devops.
    Yeah. we're not done. So far, we've spoken to IBM, Cisco, and Deloitte. There are about eight more on the docket. The point of this article, stands, though, that there is a line, where below it, the need for Windows is non-existent.
    And you have failed to show where that line is.  Again, is the AI demographic you just stated significantly different than that of Mac users?  Or have most of the "new Apple users" that don't frequent AI already moved to the iPad or never bought a Mac in the first place and have a windows laptop somewhere?
    I'm not really sure what you're asking, here.

    We didn't set out to draw precisely where the line is, so there is no failure to show something that we didn't set out to show. The piece is more to remind folks that there is a line, even though that there is the assumption that Windows compatibility is everything to everybody. We were pretty clear in the end of the piece in regards to the Mac Pro maybe never shifting.

    Who do you think reads AI? Do you not think it's primarily Apple devout for decades? William addresses this in the piece, somewhat, in regards to who reads AI. Who reads AI  should be apparent from the forums at least. Based on what we know, the "average" AI reader has been in the Apple ecosystem for well over a decade, is pretty heavily technologically savvy, has many Apple devices and has for ages, well before the iPhone 3gs, iPad, and iPhone 6 explosions in Apple user volume.

    If we could tap into 1% of the "new" Apple customer, we'd be sitting on a gold mine. Most of the new Apple users bought an iPhone and have just that so aren't relevant to this particular conversation, or got an iPhone or iPad and said "hey, this Mac thing might be pretty great" rather than the other way around like it was a decade ago.
    This is the point.  The article (and you) argues that the poll results are irrelevant (ie "overly conservative") because it does not represent the "larger user base needs".  I argue that the AI demographic more closely matches that of Mac users than the larger "new Apple users" and therefore not necessarily "overly conservative".

    If around a third of the prospective user base needs a feature it sure as hell isn't a minor feature.  There isn't any "assumption that Windows compatibility is everything to everybody" but that a significant part of the Mac user base (say closer to 35% than 3.5%) wants that feature.

    There is nothing an ARM based Mac does that an ARM based iPad Pro couldn't do with a couple further tweaks to iOS.

    So why go through the disruption of a significant processor change and leave the Mac lineup half Intel and half ARM?
    We didn't say they were irrelevant, and I'm not sure why you keep saying that. What they are is overly tilted in favor of virtualization and windows compatibility given what we know about who reads and interacts with AppleInsider. And, even given that, the majority still isn't doing it, and it isn't close.

    At no point are we saying that there won't be disruption.

    And as far as why do it? You just have to look to the last two major Mac processor shifts -- Vendors not delivering what they promise. 
    Again, how do you know the poll is “overly tilted in favor of virtualization and windows compatibility“ when those that read AI tend NOT to be the “new Apple” crowd and more of the “old Apple” crowd that owns more than just iOS devices?  In other words the AI demographic more closely matches the Mac demographic than it does the “new Apple” demographic.

    You keep harping on “majority” and trying to avoid admitting that 35% is significant enough percentage to warrant keeping that feature.  Which is why you want to call 35% results to be “overly tilted”.  

    While intel faltered on 10nm it looks like Ice Lake will finally fulfill those promises and Intel has steadily improved power per watt on 14nm.  Further it seems that Intel has been fairly responsive to Apple and my guess is that the customer that requested lakefiejld processor (bigLittle) from Intel was Apple.  Or they will apply Foveros to stack something like T2 with Intel cores to reduce footprint.

    Intel had a bad few years...just like with Itanium.  It’s fashionable to bag on Intel right now and who knows maybe the new Ice Lakes won’t hit 18% IPC improvements.  I’m guessing Intel is back on track
    I've already addressed this in some depth, but here it is again: The AI demo is the high end, tech savvy part of the Mac market. You know, the part of the Mac market that knows that the feature exists, and has the aptitude and/or need to do so. The numbers are right in front of you. If 2/3 of the tech savvy users don't use it, do you honestly think that the new Apple users do in a higher percentage, or even the same? 100% of the Mac using population used USB-A when the 2016 MacBook Pro came out, and Apple shifted anyway. 100% of Mac users used ADB before the iMac, and Apple shifted anyway. Do you think that 35% is going to slow them down on a shift that they want to make to not be beholden to Intel?

    Intel hasn't had a "bad few years." It's had a bad 2011-2019 and 10nm is literally, three years late. For the last eight years, it hasn't set a deadline for release that it's made. It was less time in 94, and in 06 where deadlines weren't being met when the other shifts were made.

    We don't get to say what Apple keeps and what doesn't, and this still isn't some kind of pitch for Apple to do so. It is an observation about why it probably will. There are enough signposts on the road that an ARM Mac is coming. You're welcome to ignore them at your leisure.

    Look, I get that you don't like it. I get that you don't want to see it. I get that you use it, and 35% of the AI demo does. I use it. But, none of that matters to Apple one bit, and you know it.
    You’re ignoring a number of things. As I mentioned in a post that hasn’t been answered, a lot of Mac users boot into Windows because of games. That’s not a trivial number. It can easily account for a large part of that 35%. Not everyone who does something is tech savvy. Installing Windows isn’t that hard.

    maybe there are signposts, and maybe it’s just a desire to see signposts. We don’t know.

    if Apple doesn’t care, then why do they do it, and why do they maintain it?
    They don't do a lot of maintenance on Boot Camp, because the thermal characteristics on the MacBook Pro running Windows are pretty bad. Also, until the hardware changed, the 13-inch MacBook Pro couldn't use an eGPU in it either.

    Apple cares about what it wants to care about, The whims change, and have always done so.

    And no, we aren't ignoring that. It isn't hard to do so, but there are technical hurdles, not the least of which is Windows not being free.
    Still, they always do what they have to to keep it compatible, and a lot of people use it. People who game don’t care about the cost of Windows.
    People who game don't buy a MacBook, MBA, or MacBook Pro to do so.
    You also get it backwards. Mac users who want to game, install Windows in Bootcamp, not the other way around. If you guys give it just a tiny amount of thought, you’d get it.
  • Reply 129 of 154
    SoliSoli Posts: 9,270member
    melgross said:
    Soli said:
    WinPC gamers care about Macs, much less lower-end Mac notebooks? That's news to me.
    You’re getting it backwards. Mac users who want to play games install Windows in Bootcamp for that purpose.
    1) You said "people who game" and referred to WinPC gaming. Do you really think that Mac-based WinPC gamers are that important to Apple that they'd stiffle and hinder the Mac platform to cater to that demographic at the cost of expanding and improving the platform? I don't.

    2) Again, how many of these hardcore WinPC games on Macs are using 12" MacBooks or 13" MacBook Airs and why would Apple care if they went away or had to move to MacBook Pros?
    edited June 23
  • Reply 130 of 154
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 4,876administrator
    melgross said:
    melgross said:
    melgross said:
    nht said:
    nht said:
    nht said:
    nht said:
    nht said:

    nht said:
    wallym said:
    As a developer, I need both mac and windows support.  To openly campaign to remove Windows compat is to be irresponsible to the marketplace.  If users don't need Windows, that's fine.  Don't penalize me for your lack of needs.
    I don't think you, nor FredFref read the article.
    Why does a dissenting opinion mean they didn't read the article?  Maybe they read, disagreed with the basic premise "cross-platform software compatibility is now mostly irrelevant to the wider user base" and everything that follows.  Especially since you had a poll, found 35% that said, yes they needed windows and then proceeded to hand wave that away as AI readers aren't a representative sample.  Which begs the question of WHY RUN THE POLL IN THE FIRST PLACE?

    The next assertion "for Apple's biggest user base, the need for Windows compatibility isn't the same as it is for the main readers of this site" is fabricated out of thin air and has zero supporting data.  Whether true or not it's based on nothing but speculation.

    If the primary uses of the Macs are Pro and everyone else migrates to iPads then a significant fraction of Mac users (dare I say 35%) will want x86 compatibility.

    But, nope...because they disagree they didn't read the article.
    That's not why I said that, and you know it. And, there's a lot more to this quote of mine than what you clipped out. And, I didn't even say anything about the ludicrous assumption that this article is a "campaign" to remove Windows compatibility.

    It wasn't handwaved away. What it is, is that 35% of the user base that reads AI doesn't need it, which is an overly conservative estimate of what the larger user base needs and does with their machines, and you know this as well, based on your own interactions with the rest of the AI readership. And, even if you translate it literally, it does mean that the majority doesn't care about Windows on the Mac.
    Why run the poll and then disregard it?  So what if 35% isn't the majority?  It's still a large part of the user base.   

    And how do you know that it is "an overly conservative estimate of what the larger user base needs"?  On what data is this assertion based on?  Why do you assume that the majority of your readers are pros?  Why did you not include in your survey to self identify if they were pros or just general users?  Never mind that these polls are generally horridly misleading anyway.

    The article, and you, would like to make it seem like it's 0.35% of the user base to sell the idea that x86 compatibility is no longer needed.  Apple may have a good idea as to the number but you don't.  Moreover you ignored the entire enterprise market because it's inconvenient.  Does IBM and other major Mac deployments believe x86 compatibility is irrelevant?  I have no idea and neither do you.  It would have been fairly easy to reach out to IT folks highlighted in past articles and ask "hey, is x86 compatibility important to your Mac enterprise deployment?"

    Nope.

    But hey...35% is an overly conservative estimate of what the larger user base needs...
    Regarding the bolded section, we are, and your own supposition of how that is going so far is wrong because what they care about so far is iOS development and general productivity. We'll see how it goes in total when we're done.

    In regards to our audience, exactly who do you think AppleInsider is read by far, far more? College grads with advanced degrees, industry folk, designers and whatnot, or the "new Apple user" which is iOS centric, where the iPhone is a halo for the Mac and not the other way around?
    And the demographics for Mac users are what?  Gee maybe folks who are "college grads with advanced degrees, industry folk, designers and whatnot"?  

    Nah.

    I will assert, based on personal experience, that there are very few enterprise iOS developers that don't care about MS project, DOORS and a bevy of windows/x86 corporate tools...still dependent on Excel with macros.  People send me a lot of stuff in Visio to boot.  Also, most of us aren't iOS developers but enterprise developers and the docker tool chain is a significant part of devops.
    Yeah. we're not done. So far, we've spoken to IBM, Cisco, and Deloitte. There are about eight more on the docket. The point of this article, stands, though, that there is a line, where below it, the need for Windows is non-existent.
    And you have failed to show where that line is.  Again, is the AI demographic you just stated significantly different than that of Mac users?  Or have most of the "new Apple users" that don't frequent AI already moved to the iPad or never bought a Mac in the first place and have a windows laptop somewhere?
    I'm not really sure what you're asking, here.

    We didn't set out to draw precisely where the line is, so there is no failure to show something that we didn't set out to show. The piece is more to remind folks that there is a line, even though that there is the assumption that Windows compatibility is everything to everybody. We were pretty clear in the end of the piece in regards to the Mac Pro maybe never shifting.

    Who do you think reads AI? Do you not think it's primarily Apple devout for decades? William addresses this in the piece, somewhat, in regards to who reads AI. Who reads AI  should be apparent from the forums at least. Based on what we know, the "average" AI reader has been in the Apple ecosystem for well over a decade, is pretty heavily technologically savvy, has many Apple devices and has for ages, well before the iPhone 3gs, iPad, and iPhone 6 explosions in Apple user volume.

    If we could tap into 1% of the "new" Apple customer, we'd be sitting on a gold mine. Most of the new Apple users bought an iPhone and have just that so aren't relevant to this particular conversation, or got an iPhone or iPad and said "hey, this Mac thing might be pretty great" rather than the other way around like it was a decade ago.
    This is the point.  The article (and you) argues that the poll results are irrelevant (ie "overly conservative") because it does not represent the "larger user base needs".  I argue that the AI demographic more closely matches that of Mac users than the larger "new Apple users" and therefore not necessarily "overly conservative".

    If around a third of the prospective user base needs a feature it sure as hell isn't a minor feature.  There isn't any "assumption that Windows compatibility is everything to everybody" but that a significant part of the Mac user base (say closer to 35% than 3.5%) wants that feature.

    There is nothing an ARM based Mac does that an ARM based iPad Pro couldn't do with a couple further tweaks to iOS.

    So why go through the disruption of a significant processor change and leave the Mac lineup half Intel and half ARM?
    We didn't say they were irrelevant, and I'm not sure why you keep saying that. What they are is overly tilted in favor of virtualization and windows compatibility given what we know about who reads and interacts with AppleInsider. And, even given that, the majority still isn't doing it, and it isn't close.

    At no point are we saying that there won't be disruption.

    And as far as why do it? You just have to look to the last two major Mac processor shifts -- Vendors not delivering what they promise. 
    Again, how do you know the poll is “overly tilted in favor of virtualization and windows compatibility“ when those that read AI tend NOT to be the “new Apple” crowd and more of the “old Apple” crowd that owns more than just iOS devices?  In other words the AI demographic more closely matches the Mac demographic than it does the “new Apple” demographic.

    You keep harping on “majority” and trying to avoid admitting that 35% is significant enough percentage to warrant keeping that feature.  Which is why you want to call 35% results to be “overly tilted”.  

    While intel faltered on 10nm it looks like Ice Lake will finally fulfill those promises and Intel has steadily improved power per watt on 14nm.  Further it seems that Intel has been fairly responsive to Apple and my guess is that the customer that requested lakefiejld processor (bigLittle) from Intel was Apple.  Or they will apply Foveros to stack something like T2 with Intel cores to reduce footprint.

    Intel had a bad few years...just like with Itanium.  It’s fashionable to bag on Intel right now and who knows maybe the new Ice Lakes won’t hit 18% IPC improvements.  I’m guessing Intel is back on track
    I've already addressed this in some depth, but here it is again: The AI demo is the high end, tech savvy part of the Mac market. You know, the part of the Mac market that knows that the feature exists, and has the aptitude and/or need to do so. The numbers are right in front of you. If 2/3 of the tech savvy users don't use it, do you honestly think that the new Apple users do in a higher percentage, or even the same? 100% of the Mac using population used USB-A when the 2016 MacBook Pro came out, and Apple shifted anyway. 100% of Mac users used ADB before the iMac, and Apple shifted anyway. Do you think that 35% is going to slow them down on a shift that they want to make to not be beholden to Intel?

    Intel hasn't had a "bad few years." It's had a bad 2011-2019 and 10nm is literally, three years late. For the last eight years, it hasn't set a deadline for release that it's made. It was less time in 94, and in 06 where deadlines weren't being met when the other shifts were made.

    We don't get to say what Apple keeps and what doesn't, and this still isn't some kind of pitch for Apple to do so. It is an observation about why it probably will. There are enough signposts on the road that an ARM Mac is coming. You're welcome to ignore them at your leisure.

    Look, I get that you don't like it. I get that you don't want to see it. I get that you use it, and 35% of the AI demo does. I use it. But, none of that matters to Apple one bit, and you know it.
    You’re ignoring a number of things. As I mentioned in a post that hasn’t been answered, a lot of Mac users boot into Windows because of games. That’s not a trivial number. It can easily account for a large part of that 35%. Not everyone who does something is tech savvy. Installing Windows isn’t that hard.

    maybe there are signposts, and maybe it’s just a desire to see signposts. We don’t know.

    if Apple doesn’t care, then why do they do it, and why do they maintain it?
    They don't do a lot of maintenance on Boot Camp, because the thermal characteristics on the MacBook Pro running Windows are pretty bad. Also, until the hardware changed, the 13-inch MacBook Pro couldn't use an eGPU in it either.

    Apple cares about what it wants to care about, The whims change, and have always done so.

    And no, we aren't ignoring that. It isn't hard to do so, but there are technical hurdles, not the least of which is Windows not being free.
    Still, they always do what they have to to keep it compatible, and a lot of people use it. People who game don’t care about the cost of Windows.
    People who game don't buy a MacBook, MBA, or MacBook Pro to do so.
    You also get it backwards. Mac users who want to game, install Windows in Bootcamp, not the other way around. If you guys give it just a tiny amount of thought, you’d get it.
    Nope, we’ve given it a lot of thought - but thanks for your concern.

    Some do. Most don’t .
    edited June 23
  • Reply 131 of 154
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,895member
    Soli said:
    melgross said:
    Soli said:
    WinPC gamers care about Macs, much less lower-end Mac notebooks? That's news to me.
    You’re getting it backwards. Mac users who want to play games install Windows in Bootcamp for that purpose.
    1) You said "people who game" and referred to WinPC gaming. Do you really think that Mac-based WinPC gamers are that important to Apple that they'd stiffle and hinder the Mac platform to cater to that demographic at the cost of expanding and improving the platform? I don't.

    2) Again, how many of these hardcore WinPC games on Macs are using 12" MacBooks or 13" MacBook Airs and why would Apple care if they went away or had to move to MacBook Pros?
    We’re talking about Bootcamp. Continuing it, and making sure it maintains compatibility has nothing to do with stifling, or hindering the Mac platform. Like it or not, Apple doesn’t sell enough Macs for most major gaming companies to release games developed directly on the Mac platform, despite a couple of major gaming platforms available.

    recently, when the number of Macs running around the world was given by Apple, it was the same 100 million as a few years ago. I expected at least 20 to 30 million more. That’s a drop in the bucket when compared to the windows platform. So gamers who own Macs, rather than Windows machines, need to install Windows in Bootcamp in order  to get most major games. 

    You are deliberately trying to confuse the issue by using terms like “hardcore WinPC”. It’s gamers. Period! The fact that most games are in Windows, doesn’t make someone a hardcore gamer because they want to play them. And it doesn’t make those games hardcore because they’re on the Windows platform.

    apple has always been skittish about Mac gaming. Partly because the Mac was called a toy computer for many years, and Apple feared by encouraging gaming, that reputation would just be locked in. So while they had several aborted attempts that were hailed by the community, they never lasted very long. iOS has, if anything, allowed Apple to deflect it further away from the Mac.

    so many people who have Macs, and want to game, install Windows. To them, it’s no different than buying a game machine.

    if you knew much about the gaming community, you would know that it’s just a small percentage that buy big, expensive, gaming rigs. By far, most play on modest computers no better than an Apple laptop, though most Windows machines do have somewhat better specs for less money. So, whatever Mac is owned is potentially a game machine. Sure, the Macbook is a slow machine for all software, and doesn’t make a great gaming machine either. But Windows runs apps faster on a Mac, any Mac, than MacOS does, and this is well known.
  • Reply 132 of 154
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,895member
    melgross said:
    melgross said:
    melgross said:
    nht said:
    nht said:
    nht said:
    nht said:
    nht said:

    nht said:
    wallym said:
    As a developer, I need both mac and windows support.  To openly campaign to remove Windows compat is to be irresponsible to the marketplace.  If users don't need Windows, that's fine.  Don't penalize me for your lack of needs.
    I don't think you, nor FredFref read the article.
    Why does a dissenting opinion mean they didn't read the article?  Maybe they read, disagreed with the basic premise "cross-platform software compatibility is now mostly irrelevant to the wider user base" and everything that follows.  Especially since you had a poll, found 35% that said, yes they needed windows and then proceeded to hand wave that away as AI readers aren't a representative sample.  Which begs the question of WHY RUN THE POLL IN THE FIRST PLACE?

    The next assertion "for Apple's biggest user base, the need for Windows compatibility isn't the same as it is for the main readers of this site" is fabricated out of thin air and has zero supporting data.  Whether true or not it's based on nothing but speculation.

    If the primary uses of the Macs are Pro and everyone else migrates to iPads then a significant fraction of Mac users (dare I say 35%) will want x86 compatibility.

    But, nope...because they disagree they didn't read the article.
    That's not why I said that, and you know it. And, there's a lot more to this quote of mine than what you clipped out. And, I didn't even say anything about the ludicrous assumption that this article is a "campaign" to remove Windows compatibility.

    It wasn't handwaved away. What it is, is that 35% of the user base that reads AI doesn't need it, which is an overly conservative estimate of what the larger user base needs and does with their machines, and you know this as well, based on your own interactions with the rest of the AI readership. And, even if you translate it literally, it does mean that the majority doesn't care about Windows on the Mac.
    Why run the poll and then disregard it?  So what if 35% isn't the majority?  It's still a large part of the user base.   

    And how do you know that it is "an overly conservative estimate of what the larger user base needs"?  On what data is this assertion based on?  Why do you assume that the majority of your readers are pros?  Why did you not include in your survey to self identify if they were pros or just general users?  Never mind that these polls are generally horridly misleading anyway.

    The article, and you, would like to make it seem like it's 0.35% of the user base to sell the idea that x86 compatibility is no longer needed.  Apple may have a good idea as to the number but you don't.  Moreover you ignored the entire enterprise market because it's inconvenient.  Does IBM and other major Mac deployments believe x86 compatibility is irrelevant?  I have no idea and neither do you.  It would have been fairly easy to reach out to IT folks highlighted in past articles and ask "hey, is x86 compatibility important to your Mac enterprise deployment?"

    Nope.

    But hey...35% is an overly conservative estimate of what the larger user base needs...
    Regarding the bolded section, we are, and your own supposition of how that is going so far is wrong because what they care about so far is iOS development and general productivity. We'll see how it goes in total when we're done.

    In regards to our audience, exactly who do you think AppleInsider is read by far, far more? College grads with advanced degrees, industry folk, designers and whatnot, or the "new Apple user" which is iOS centric, where the iPhone is a halo for the Mac and not the other way around?
    And the demographics for Mac users are what?  Gee maybe folks who are "college grads with advanced degrees, industry folk, designers and whatnot"?  

    Nah.

    I will assert, based on personal experience, that there are very few enterprise iOS developers that don't care about MS project, DOORS and a bevy of windows/x86 corporate tools...still dependent on Excel with macros.  People send me a lot of stuff in Visio to boot.  Also, most of us aren't iOS developers but enterprise developers and the docker tool chain is a significant part of devops.
    Yeah. we're not done. So far, we've spoken to IBM, Cisco, and Deloitte. There are about eight more on the docket. The point of this article, stands, though, that there is a line, where below it, the need for Windows is non-existent.
    And you have failed to show where that line is.  Again, is the AI demographic you just stated significantly different than that of Mac users?  Or have most of the "new Apple users" that don't frequent AI already moved to the iPad or never bought a Mac in the first place and have a windows laptop somewhere?
    I'm not really sure what you're asking, here.

    We didn't set out to draw precisely where the line is, so there is no failure to show something that we didn't set out to show. The piece is more to remind folks that there is a line, even though that there is the assumption that Windows compatibility is everything to everybody. We were pretty clear in the end of the piece in regards to the Mac Pro maybe never shifting.

    Who do you think reads AI? Do you not think it's primarily Apple devout for decades? William addresses this in the piece, somewhat, in regards to who reads AI. Who reads AI  should be apparent from the forums at least. Based on what we know, the "average" AI reader has been in the Apple ecosystem for well over a decade, is pretty heavily technologically savvy, has many Apple devices and has for ages, well before the iPhone 3gs, iPad, and iPhone 6 explosions in Apple user volume.

    If we could tap into 1% of the "new" Apple customer, we'd be sitting on a gold mine. Most of the new Apple users bought an iPhone and have just that so aren't relevant to this particular conversation, or got an iPhone or iPad and said "hey, this Mac thing might be pretty great" rather than the other way around like it was a decade ago.
    This is the point.  The article (and you) argues that the poll results are irrelevant (ie "overly conservative") because it does not represent the "larger user base needs".  I argue that the AI demographic more closely matches that of Mac users than the larger "new Apple users" and therefore not necessarily "overly conservative".

    If around a third of the prospective user base needs a feature it sure as hell isn't a minor feature.  There isn't any "assumption that Windows compatibility is everything to everybody" but that a significant part of the Mac user base (say closer to 35% than 3.5%) wants that feature.

    There is nothing an ARM based Mac does that an ARM based iPad Pro couldn't do with a couple further tweaks to iOS.

    So why go through the disruption of a significant processor change and leave the Mac lineup half Intel and half ARM?
    We didn't say they were irrelevant, and I'm not sure why you keep saying that. What they are is overly tilted in favor of virtualization and windows compatibility given what we know about who reads and interacts with AppleInsider. And, even given that, the majority still isn't doing it, and it isn't close.

    At no point are we saying that there won't be disruption.

    And as far as why do it? You just have to look to the last two major Mac processor shifts -- Vendors not delivering what they promise. 
    Again, how do you know the poll is “overly tilted in favor of virtualization and windows compatibility“ when those that read AI tend NOT to be the “new Apple” crowd and more of the “old Apple” crowd that owns more than just iOS devices?  In other words the AI demographic more closely matches the Mac demographic than it does the “new Apple” demographic.

    You keep harping on “majority” and trying to avoid admitting that 35% is significant enough percentage to warrant keeping that feature.  Which is why you want to call 35% results to be “overly tilted”.  

    While intel faltered on 10nm it looks like Ice Lake will finally fulfill those promises and Intel has steadily improved power per watt on 14nm.  Further it seems that Intel has been fairly responsive to Apple and my guess is that the customer that requested lakefiejld processor (bigLittle) from Intel was Apple.  Or they will apply Foveros to stack something like T2 with Intel cores to reduce footprint.

    Intel had a bad few years...just like with Itanium.  It’s fashionable to bag on Intel right now and who knows maybe the new Ice Lakes won’t hit 18% IPC improvements.  I’m guessing Intel is back on track
    I've already addressed this in some depth, but here it is again: The AI demo is the high end, tech savvy part of the Mac market. You know, the part of the Mac market that knows that the feature exists, and has the aptitude and/or need to do so. The numbers are right in front of you. If 2/3 of the tech savvy users don't use it, do you honestly think that the new Apple users do in a higher percentage, or even the same? 100% of the Mac using population used USB-A when the 2016 MacBook Pro came out, and Apple shifted anyway. 100% of Mac users used ADB before the iMac, and Apple shifted anyway. Do you think that 35% is going to slow them down on a shift that they want to make to not be beholden to Intel?

    Intel hasn't had a "bad few years." It's had a bad 2011-2019 and 10nm is literally, three years late. For the last eight years, it hasn't set a deadline for release that it's made. It was less time in 94, and in 06 where deadlines weren't being met when the other shifts were made.

    We don't get to say what Apple keeps and what doesn't, and this still isn't some kind of pitch for Apple to do so. It is an observation about why it probably will. There are enough signposts on the road that an ARM Mac is coming. You're welcome to ignore them at your leisure.

    Look, I get that you don't like it. I get that you don't want to see it. I get that you use it, and 35% of the AI demo does. I use it. But, none of that matters to Apple one bit, and you know it.
    You’re ignoring a number of things. As I mentioned in a post that hasn’t been answered, a lot of Mac users boot into Windows because of games. That’s not a trivial number. It can easily account for a large part of that 35%. Not everyone who does something is tech savvy. Installing Windows isn’t that hard.

    maybe there are signposts, and maybe it’s just a desire to see signposts. We don’t know.

    if Apple doesn’t care, then why do they do it, and why do they maintain it?
    They don't do a lot of maintenance on Boot Camp, because the thermal characteristics on the MacBook Pro running Windows are pretty bad. Also, until the hardware changed, the 13-inch MacBook Pro couldn't use an eGPU in it either.

    Apple cares about what it wants to care about, The whims change, and have always done so.

    And no, we aren't ignoring that. It isn't hard to do so, but there are technical hurdles, not the least of which is Windows not being free.
    Still, they always do what they have to to keep it compatible, and a lot of people use it. People who game don’t care about the cost of Windows.
    People who game don't buy a MacBook, MBA, or MacBook Pro to do so.
    You also get it backwards. Mac users who want to game, install Windows in Bootcamp, not the other way around. If you guys give it just a tiny amount of thought, you’d get it.
    Nope, we’ve given it a lot of thought - but thanks for your concern.

    Some do. Most don’t .
    And people think I’m snarky. And no, you obviously have given it almost no thought, or you would understand that it’s very likely that most Bootcamp Windows installations are for gaming, not for professional purposes.
  • Reply 133 of 154
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 4,876administrator
    melgross said:
    melgross said:
    melgross said:
    melgross said:
    nht said:
    nht said:
    nht said:
    nht said:
    nht said:

    nht said:
    wallym said:
    As a developer, I need both mac and windows support.  To openly campaign to remove Windows compat is to be irresponsible to the marketplace.  If users don't need Windows, that's fine.  Don't penalize me for your lack of needs.
    I don't think you, nor FredFref read the article.
    Why does a dissenting opinion mean they didn't read the article?  Maybe they read, disagreed with the basic premise "cross-platform software compatibility is now mostly irrelevant to the wider user base" and everything that follows.  Especially since you had a poll, found 35% that said, yes they needed windows and then proceeded to hand wave that away as AI readers aren't a representative sample.  Which begs the question of WHY RUN THE POLL IN THE FIRST PLACE?

    The next assertion "for Apple's biggest user base, the need for Windows compatibility isn't the same as it is for the main readers of this site" is fabricated out of thin air and has zero supporting data.  Whether true or not it's based on nothing but speculation.

    If the primary uses of the Macs are Pro and everyone else migrates to iPads then a significant fraction of Mac users (dare I say 35%) will want x86 compatibility.

    But, nope...because they disagree they didn't read the article.
    That's not why I said that, and you know it. And, there's a lot more to this quote of mine than what you clipped out. And, I didn't even say anything about the ludicrous assumption that this article is a "campaign" to remove Windows compatibility.

    It wasn't handwaved away. What it is, is that 35% of the user base that reads AI doesn't need it, which is an overly conservative estimate of what the larger user base needs and does with their machines, and you know this as well, based on your own interactions with the rest of the AI readership. And, even if you translate it literally, it does mean that the majority doesn't care about Windows on the Mac.
    Why run the poll and then disregard it?  So what if 35% isn't the majority?  It's still a large part of the user base.   

    And how do you know that it is "an overly conservative estimate of what the larger user base needs"?  On what data is this assertion based on?  Why do you assume that the majority of your readers are pros?  Why did you not include in your survey to self identify if they were pros or just general users?  Never mind that these polls are generally horridly misleading anyway.

    The article, and you, would like to make it seem like it's 0.35% of the user base to sell the idea that x86 compatibility is no longer needed.  Apple may have a good idea as to the number but you don't.  Moreover you ignored the entire enterprise market because it's inconvenient.  Does IBM and other major Mac deployments believe x86 compatibility is irrelevant?  I have no idea and neither do you.  It would have been fairly easy to reach out to IT folks highlighted in past articles and ask "hey, is x86 compatibility important to your Mac enterprise deployment?"

    Nope.

    But hey...35% is an overly conservative estimate of what the larger user base needs...
    Regarding the bolded section, we are, and your own supposition of how that is going so far is wrong because what they care about so far is iOS development and general productivity. We'll see how it goes in total when we're done.

    In regards to our audience, exactly who do you think AppleInsider is read by far, far more? College grads with advanced degrees, industry folk, designers and whatnot, or the "new Apple user" which is iOS centric, where the iPhone is a halo for the Mac and not the other way around?
    And the demographics for Mac users are what?  Gee maybe folks who are "college grads with advanced degrees, industry folk, designers and whatnot"?  

    Nah.

    I will assert, based on personal experience, that there are very few enterprise iOS developers that don't care about MS project, DOORS and a bevy of windows/x86 corporate tools...still dependent on Excel with macros.  People send me a lot of stuff in Visio to boot.  Also, most of us aren't iOS developers but enterprise developers and the docker tool chain is a significant part of devops.
    Yeah. we're not done. So far, we've spoken to IBM, Cisco, and Deloitte. There are about eight more on the docket. The point of this article, stands, though, that there is a line, where below it, the need for Windows is non-existent.
    And you have failed to show where that line is.  Again, is the AI demographic you just stated significantly different than that of Mac users?  Or have most of the "new Apple users" that don't frequent AI already moved to the iPad or never bought a Mac in the first place and have a windows laptop somewhere?
    I'm not really sure what you're asking, here.

    We didn't set out to draw precisely where the line is, so there is no failure to show something that we didn't set out to show. The piece is more to remind folks that there is a line, even though that there is the assumption that Windows compatibility is everything to everybody. We were pretty clear in the end of the piece in regards to the Mac Pro maybe never shifting.

    Who do you think reads AI? Do you not think it's primarily Apple devout for decades? William addresses this in the piece, somewhat, in regards to who reads AI. Who reads AI  should be apparent from the forums at least. Based on what we know, the "average" AI reader has been in the Apple ecosystem for well over a decade, is pretty heavily technologically savvy, has many Apple devices and has for ages, well before the iPhone 3gs, iPad, and iPhone 6 explosions in Apple user volume.

    If we could tap into 1% of the "new" Apple customer, we'd be sitting on a gold mine. Most of the new Apple users bought an iPhone and have just that so aren't relevant to this particular conversation, or got an iPhone or iPad and said "hey, this Mac thing might be pretty great" rather than the other way around like it was a decade ago.
    This is the point.  The article (and you) argues that the poll results are irrelevant (ie "overly conservative") because it does not represent the "larger user base needs".  I argue that the AI demographic more closely matches that of Mac users than the larger "new Apple users" and therefore not necessarily "overly conservative".

    If around a third of the prospective user base needs a feature it sure as hell isn't a minor feature.  There isn't any "assumption that Windows compatibility is everything to everybody" but that a significant part of the Mac user base (say closer to 35% than 3.5%) wants that feature.

    There is nothing an ARM based Mac does that an ARM based iPad Pro couldn't do with a couple further tweaks to iOS.

    So why go through the disruption of a significant processor change and leave the Mac lineup half Intel and half ARM?
    We didn't say they were irrelevant, and I'm not sure why you keep saying that. What they are is overly tilted in favor of virtualization and windows compatibility given what we know about who reads and interacts with AppleInsider. And, even given that, the majority still isn't doing it, and it isn't close.

    At no point are we saying that there won't be disruption.

    And as far as why do it? You just have to look to the last two major Mac processor shifts -- Vendors not delivering what they promise. 
    Again, how do you know the poll is “overly tilted in favor of virtualization and windows compatibility“ when those that read AI tend NOT to be the “new Apple” crowd and more of the “old Apple” crowd that owns more than just iOS devices?  In other words the AI demographic more closely matches the Mac demographic than it does the “new Apple” demographic.

    You keep harping on “majority” and trying to avoid admitting that 35% is significant enough percentage to warrant keeping that feature.  Which is why you want to call 35% results to be “overly tilted”.  

    While intel faltered on 10nm it looks like Ice Lake will finally fulfill those promises and Intel has steadily improved power per watt on 14nm.  Further it seems that Intel has been fairly responsive to Apple and my guess is that the customer that requested lakefiejld processor (bigLittle) from Intel was Apple.  Or they will apply Foveros to stack something like T2 with Intel cores to reduce footprint.

    Intel had a bad few years...just like with Itanium.  It’s fashionable to bag on Intel right now and who knows maybe the new Ice Lakes won’t hit 18% IPC improvements.  I’m guessing Intel is back on track
    I've already addressed this in some depth, but here it is again: The AI demo is the high end, tech savvy part of the Mac market. You know, the part of the Mac market that knows that the feature exists, and has the aptitude and/or need to do so. The numbers are right in front of you. If 2/3 of the tech savvy users don't use it, do you honestly think that the new Apple users do in a higher percentage, or even the same? 100% of the Mac using population used USB-A when the 2016 MacBook Pro came out, and Apple shifted anyway. 100% of Mac users used ADB before the iMac, and Apple shifted anyway. Do you think that 35% is going to slow them down on a shift that they want to make to not be beholden to Intel?

    Intel hasn't had a "bad few years." It's had a bad 2011-2019 and 10nm is literally, three years late. For the last eight years, it hasn't set a deadline for release that it's made. It was less time in 94, and in 06 where deadlines weren't being met when the other shifts were made.

    We don't get to say what Apple keeps and what doesn't, and this still isn't some kind of pitch for Apple to do so. It is an observation about why it probably will. There are enough signposts on the road that an ARM Mac is coming. You're welcome to ignore them at your leisure.

    Look, I get that you don't like it. I get that you don't want to see it. I get that you use it, and 35% of the AI demo does. I use it. But, none of that matters to Apple one bit, and you know it.
    You’re ignoring a number of things. As I mentioned in a post that hasn’t been answered, a lot of Mac users boot into Windows because of games. That’s not a trivial number. It can easily account for a large part of that 35%. Not everyone who does something is tech savvy. Installing Windows isn’t that hard.

    maybe there are signposts, and maybe it’s just a desire to see signposts. We don’t know.

    if Apple doesn’t care, then why do they do it, and why do they maintain it?
    They don't do a lot of maintenance on Boot Camp, because the thermal characteristics on the MacBook Pro running Windows are pretty bad. Also, until the hardware changed, the 13-inch MacBook Pro couldn't use an eGPU in it either.

    Apple cares about what it wants to care about, The whims change, and have always done so.

    And no, we aren't ignoring that. It isn't hard to do so, but there are technical hurdles, not the least of which is Windows not being free.
    Still, they always do what they have to to keep it compatible, and a lot of people use it. People who game don’t care about the cost of Windows.
    People who game don't buy a MacBook, MBA, or MacBook Pro to do so.
    You also get it backwards. Mac users who want to game, install Windows in Bootcamp, not the other way around. If you guys give it just a tiny amount of thought, you’d get it.
    Nope, we’ve given it a lot of thought - but thanks for your concern.

    Some do. Most don’t .
    And people think I’m snarky. And no, you obviously have given it almost no thought, or you would understand that it’s very likely that most Bootcamp Windows installations are for gaming, not for professional purposes.
    Bootcamp Windows installations are absolutely for professional purposes more than gaming. This entire thread is full of the former, and almost none of the latter -- for reasons I've discussed previously.

    Even if you want the benefit of the doubt and assume an equal distribution of gaming and professional needs, it is still 2:1 in favor of people NOT doing any kind of virtualization, or native execution of Windows on Mac.
    edited June 24 Soli
  • Reply 134 of 154
    SoliSoli Posts: 9,270member
    melgross said:
    Soli said:
    melgross said:
    Soli said:
    WinPC gamers care about Macs, much less lower-end Mac notebooks? That's news to me.
    You’re getting it backwards. Mac users who want to play games install Windows in Bootcamp for that purpose.
    1) You said "people who game" and referred to WinPC gaming. Do you really think that Mac-based WinPC gamers are that important to Apple that they'd stiffle and hinder the Mac platform to cater to that demographic at the cost of expanding and improving the platform? I don't.

    2) Again, how many of these hardcore WinPC games on Macs are using 12" MacBooks or 13" MacBook Airs and why would Apple care if they went away or had to move to MacBook Pros?
    We’re talking about Bootcamp. Continuing it, and making sure it maintains compatibility has nothing to do with stifling, or hindering the Mac platform. Like it or not, Apple doesn’t sell enough Macs for most major gaming companies to release games developed directly on the Mac platform, despite a couple of major gaming platforms available.

    recently, when the number of Macs running around the world was given by Apple, it was the same 100 million as a few years ago. I expected at least 20 to 30 million more. That’s a drop in the bucket when compared to the windows platform. So gamers who own Macs, rather than Windows machines, need to install Windows in Bootcamp in order  to get most major games. 

    You are deliberately trying to confuse the issue by using terms like “hardcore WinPC”. It’s gamers. Period! The fact that most games are in Windows, doesn’t make someone a hardcore gamer because they want to play them. And it doesn’t make those games hardcore because they’re on the Windows platform.

    apple has always been skittish about Mac gaming. Partly because the Mac was called a toy computer for many years, and Apple feared by encouraging gaming, that reputation would just be locked in. So while they had several aborted attempts that were hailed by the community, they never lasted very long. iOS has, if anything, allowed Apple to deflect it further away from the Mac.

    so many people who have Macs, and want to game, install Windows. To them, it’s no different than buying a game machine.

    if you knew much about the gaming community, you would know that it’s just a small percentage that buy big, expensive, gaming rigs. By far, most play on modest computers no better than an Apple laptop, though most Windows machines do have somewhat better specs for less money. So, whatever Mac is owned is potentially a game machine. Sure, the Macbook is a slow machine for all software, and doesn’t make a great gaming machine either. But Windows runs apps faster on a Mac, any Mac, than MacOS does, and this is well known.
    We're talking about what Apple's future path is likely to be and you have some odd "one-drop" notion that if you can make a case for a single user wanting to use Windows to as a gaming machine on a lower-end Mac that Apple would never consider adding ARM-based Macs to their line up pool... and that's just ridiculous.

    PS: I don't expect that I'd even be the target market for such a Mac and I'm clearly not seeing a potential future that appeals to my personal needs. I'm excited about the 16" MBP rumours and I see no path forward for me except the largest and one of the more expensive x86_64-based MBPs for the foreseeable future.
    edited June 24
  • Reply 135 of 154
    Soli said:
    Soli said:
    genovelle said:
    I believe project Catalyst is the key to this transition. It is the Trojan horse. If they can convince a mass of developers to embrace the conversion and especially if they made the process work effort ly in reverse, they will have an enormous catalog of apps that will run on ARM but are customized for use on the Mac. 
    NO. Catalyst is bringing iOS apps to macOS on Intel because Apple can. Bringing RISC apps to CISC CPU architecture is relatively easy. Some Mac users will like them and users. Others will find them limiting.

    Bringing Mac apps to iOS on ARM is not gonna happen. Going CISC to RISC is full of roadblocks. I won't list them as they've been covered to death in the past.
    1) That did happen. It’s how the iPhone was created. We even had advances like QuickTime coming to iOS that came back to macOS for an even better Mac experience.

    2) This is article isn’t about Mac apps going to iOS, it’s about the obvious progression to make macOS run on ARM. ARM does not equate to iOS.
    1) What are you on about? You aren't paying attention.
    2) Again, you're off.

    Please folks, try to be coherent. Posts like this only serve chaos. Reading what people write in context solves confusion.
    1) Yes, it was. The history of iOS is well documented. At one point they even referred to it as OS X iPhone before eventually settling on publicly adopted iOS moniker. 

    2) I'm going to laugh when people like you feel sideswiped by what everyone else saw coming years ago.
    1) The history of iOS has nothing to do with this topic. Again, pay attention please.

    2) Laughing at people is troll behavior. This has nothing to do with the topic.

    The topic: Is it practical for Apple to create ARM-based Mac computers?

    Answer: No. Going through your other comments in this thread, you have not adequately addressed the barriers, all of which have been thrashed out on the Internet literally years ago. Move along please. This isn't your subject of expertise. Apparently, it is mine. Although again, all anyone has to do is read about CISC vs RISC in any decent Computing 101 book to comprehend the situation, the one you're ignoring.
  • Reply 136 of 154
    SoliSoli Posts: 9,270member
    Soli said:
    Soli said:
    genovelle said:
    I believe project Catalyst is the key to this transition. It is the Trojan horse. If they can convince a mass of developers to embrace the conversion and especially if they made the process work effort ly in reverse, they will have an enormous catalog of apps that will run on ARM but are customized for use on the Mac. 
    NO. Catalyst is bringing iOS apps to macOS on Intel because Apple can. Bringing RISC apps to CISC CPU architecture is relatively easy. Some Mac users will like them and users. Others will find them limiting.

    Bringing Mac apps to iOS on ARM is not gonna happen. Going CISC to RISC is full of roadblocks. I won't list them as they've been covered to death in the past.
    1) That did happen. It’s how the iPhone was created. We even had advances like QuickTime coming to iOS that came back to macOS for an even better Mac experience.

    2) This is article isn’t about Mac apps going to iOS, it’s about the obvious progression to make macOS run on ARM. ARM does not equate to iOS.
    1) What are you on about? You aren't paying attention.
    2) Again, you're off.

    Please folks, try to be coherent. Posts like this only serve chaos. Reading what people write in context solves confusion.
    1) Yes, it was. The history of iOS is well documented. At one point they even referred to it as OS X iPhone before eventually settling on publicly adopted iOS moniker. 

    2) I'm going to laugh when people like you feel sideswiped by what everyone else saw coming years ago.
    1) The history of iOS has nothing to do with this topic. Again, pay attention please.

    2) Laughing at people is troll behavior. This has nothing to do with the topic.

    The topic: Is it practical for Apple to create ARM-based Mac computers?

    Answer: No. Going through your other comments in this thread, you have not adequately addressed the barriers, all of which have been thrashed out on the Internet literally years ago. Move along please. This isn't your subject of expertise. Apparently, it is mine. Although again, all anyone has to do is read about CISC vs RISC in any decent Computing 101 book to comprehend the situation, the one you're ignoring.
    1) You claimed that "Bringing Mac apps to iOS on ARM is not gonna happen" and got slapped in the face with the facts. Not knowing the recent history of Apple or general technology is understandable, but not learning from your mistakes is not.

    2) In this case it is schadenfreude and it is much deserved.
    edited June 24 roundaboutnow
  • Reply 137 of 154
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,895member
    melgross said:
    melgross said:
    nht said:
    nht said:
    nht said:
    nht said:
    nht said:

    nht said:
    wallym said:
    As a developer, I need both mac and windows support.  To openly campaign to remove Windows compat is to be irresponsible to the marketplace.  If users don't need Windows, that's fine.  Don't penalize me for your lack of needs.
    I don't think you, nor FredFref read the article.
    Why does a dissenting opinion mean they didn't read the article?  Maybe they read, disagreed with the basic premise "cross-platform software compatibility is now mostly irrelevant to the wider user base" and everything that follows.  Especially since you had a poll, found 35% that said, yes they needed windows and then proceeded to hand wave that away as AI readers aren't a representative sample.  Which begs the question of WHY RUN THE POLL IN THE FIRST PLACE?

    The next assertion "for Apple's biggest user base, the need for Windows compatibility isn't the same as it is for the main readers of this site" is fabricated out of thin air and has zero supporting data.  Whether true or not it's based on nothing but speculation.

    If the primary uses of the Macs are Pro and everyone else migrates to iPads then a significant fraction of Mac users (dare I say 35%) will want x86 compatibility.

    But, nope...because they disagree they didn't read the article.
    That's not why I said that, and you know it. And, there's a lot more to this quote of mine than what you clipped out. And, I didn't even say anything about the ludicrous assumption that this article is a "campaign" to remove Windows compatibility.

    It wasn't handwaved away. What it is, is that 35% of the user base that reads AI doesn't need it, which is an overly conservative estimate of what the larger user base needs and does with their machines, and you know this as well, based on your own interactions with the rest of the AI readership. And, even if you translate it literally, it does mean that the majority doesn't care about Windows on the Mac.
    Why run the poll and then disregard it?  So what if 35% isn't the majority?  It's still a large part of the user base.   

    And how do you know that it is "an overly conservative estimate of what the larger user base needs"?  On what data is this assertion based on?  Why do you assume that the majority of your readers are pros?  Why did you not include in your survey to self identify if they were pros or just general users?  Never mind that these polls are generally horridly misleading anyway.

    The article, and you, would like to make it seem like it's 0.35% of the user base to sell the idea that x86 compatibility is no longer needed.  Apple may have a good idea as to the number but you don't.  Moreover you ignored the entire enterprise market because it's inconvenient.  Does IBM and other major Mac deployments believe x86 compatibility is irrelevant?  I have no idea and neither do you.  It would have been fairly easy to reach out to IT folks highlighted in past articles and ask "hey, is x86 compatibility important to your Mac enterprise deployment?"

    Nope.

    But hey...35% is an overly conservative estimate of what the larger user base needs...
    Regarding the bolded section, we are, and your own supposition of how that is going so far is wrong because what they care about so far is iOS development and general productivity. We'll see how it goes in total when we're done.

    In regards to our audience, exactly who do you think AppleInsider is read by far, far more? College grads with advanced degrees, industry folk, designers and whatnot, or the "new Apple user" which is iOS centric, where the iPhone is a halo for the Mac and not the other way around?
    And the demographics for Mac users are what?  Gee maybe folks who are "college grads with advanced degrees, industry folk, designers and whatnot"?  

    Nah.

    I will assert, based on personal experience, that there are very few enterprise iOS developers that don't care about MS project, DOORS and a bevy of windows/x86 corporate tools...still dependent on Excel with macros.  People send me a lot of stuff in Visio to boot.  Also, most of us aren't iOS developers but enterprise developers and the docker tool chain is a significant part of devops.
    Yeah. we're not done. So far, we've spoken to IBM, Cisco, and Deloitte. There are about eight more on the docket. The point of this article, stands, though, that there is a line, where below it, the need for Windows is non-existent.
    And you have failed to show where that line is.  Again, is the AI demographic you just stated significantly different than that of Mac users?  Or have most of the "new Apple users" that don't frequent AI already moved to the iPad or never bought a Mac in the first place and have a windows laptop somewhere?
    I'm not really sure what you're asking, here.

    We didn't set out to draw precisely where the line is, so there is no failure to show something that we didn't set out to show. The piece is more to remind folks that there is a line, even though that there is the assumption that Windows compatibility is everything to everybody. We were pretty clear in the end of the piece in regards to the Mac Pro maybe never shifting.

    Who do you think reads AI? Do you not think it's primarily Apple devout for decades? William addresses this in the piece, somewhat, in regards to who reads AI. Who reads AI  should be apparent from the forums at least. Based on what we know, the "average" AI reader has been in the Apple ecosystem for well over a decade, is pretty heavily technologically savvy, has many Apple devices and has for ages, well before the iPhone 3gs, iPad, and iPhone 6 explosions in Apple user volume.

    If we could tap into 1% of the "new" Apple customer, we'd be sitting on a gold mine. Most of the new Apple users bought an iPhone and have just that so aren't relevant to this particular conversation, or got an iPhone or iPad and said "hey, this Mac thing might be pretty great" rather than the other way around like it was a decade ago.
    This is the point.  The article (and you) argues that the poll results are irrelevant (ie "overly conservative") because it does not represent the "larger user base needs".  I argue that the AI demographic more closely matches that of Mac users than the larger "new Apple users" and therefore not necessarily "overly conservative".

    If around a third of the prospective user base needs a feature it sure as hell isn't a minor feature.  There isn't any "assumption that Windows compatibility is everything to everybody" but that a significant part of the Mac user base (say closer to 35% than 3.5%) wants that feature.

    There is nothing an ARM based Mac does that an ARM based iPad Pro couldn't do with a couple further tweaks to iOS.

    So why go through the disruption of a significant processor change and leave the Mac lineup half Intel and half ARM?
    We didn't say they were irrelevant, and I'm not sure why you keep saying that. What they are is overly tilted in favor of virtualization and windows compatibility given what we know about who reads and interacts with AppleInsider. And, even given that, the majority still isn't doing it, and it isn't close.

    At no point are we saying that there won't be disruption.

    And as far as why do it? You just have to look to the last two major Mac processor shifts -- Vendors not delivering what they promise. 
    Again, how do you know the poll is “overly tilted in favor of virtualization and windows compatibility“ when those that read AI tend NOT to be the “new Apple” crowd and more of the “old Apple” crowd that owns more than just iOS devices?  In other words the AI demographic more closely matches the Mac demographic than it does the “new Apple” demographic.

    You keep harping on “majority” and trying to avoid admitting that 35% is significant enough percentage to warrant keeping that feature.  Which is why you want to call 35% results to be “overly tilted”.  

    While intel faltered on 10nm it looks like Ice Lake will finally fulfill those promises and Intel has steadily improved power per watt on 14nm.  Further it seems that Intel has been fairly responsive to Apple and my guess is that the customer that requested lakefiejld processor (bigLittle) from Intel was Apple.  Or they will apply Foveros to stack something like T2 with Intel cores to reduce footprint.

    Intel had a bad few years...just like with Itanium.  It’s fashionable to bag on Intel right now and who knows maybe the new Ice Lakes won’t hit 18% IPC improvements.  I’m guessing Intel is back on track
    I've already addressed this in some depth, but here it is again: The AI demo is the high end, tech savvy part of the Mac market. You know, the part of the Mac market that knows that the feature exists, and has the aptitude and/or need to do so. The numbers are right in front of you. If 2/3 of the tech savvy users don't use it, do you honestly think that the new Apple users do in a higher percentage, or even the same? 100% of the Mac using population used USB-A when the 2016 MacBook Pro came out, and Apple shifted anyway. 100% of Mac users used ADB before the iMac, and Apple shifted anyway. Do you think that 35% is going to slow them down on a shift that they want to make to not be beholden to Intel?

    Intel hasn't had a "bad few years." It's had a bad 2011-2019 and 10nm is literally, three years late. For the last eight years, it hasn't set a deadline for release that it's made. It was less time in 94, and in 06 where deadlines weren't being met when the other shifts were made.

    We don't get to say what Apple keeps and what doesn't, and this still isn't some kind of pitch for Apple to do so. It is an observation about why it probably will. There are enough signposts on the road that an ARM Mac is coming. You're welcome to ignore them at your leisure.

    Look, I get that you don't like it. I get that you don't want to see it. I get that you use it, and 35% of the AI demo does. I use it. But, none of that matters to Apple one bit, and you know it.
    You’re ignoring a number of things. As I mentioned in a post that hasn’t been answered, a lot of Mac users boot into Windows because of games. That’s not a trivial number. It can easily account for a large part of that 35%. Not everyone who does something is tech savvy. Installing Windows isn’t that hard.

    maybe there are signposts, and maybe it’s just a desire to see signposts. We don’t know.

    if Apple doesn’t care, then why do they do it, and why do they maintain it?
    They don't do a lot of maintenance on Boot Camp, because the thermal characteristics on the MacBook Pro running Windows are pretty bad. Also, until the hardware changed, the 13-inch MacBook Pro couldn't use an eGPU in it either.

    Apple cares about what it wants to care about, The whims change, and have always done so.

    And no, we aren't ignoring that. It isn't hard to do so, but there are technical hurdles, not the least of which is Windows not being free.
    Still, they always do what they have to to keep it compatible, and a lot of people use it. People who game don’t care about the cost of Windows.
    People who game don't buy a MacBook, MBA, or MacBook Pro to do so.
    I cannot believe that you can’t seem to understand what I’ve been saying. It’s not that difficult. There are people who use Macs. They also like to game. The state of gaming on the Mac is poor. To overcome that, they install Windows into Bootcamp, and play their games there. When they’re through with gaming, they reboot into macOS, and use their computer as a. Mac. I’ve never even hinted that people buy Macs to game. They buy Macs because they want a Mac for most of what they do. But when it comes to games, quite frankly, the Mac sucks, so they need Windows. But they’re not going to buy a Windows machine just to play games. Buying the Windows OS is a lot cheaper, and convenient, so they do that instead.
  • Reply 138 of 154
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,895member
    melgross said:
    melgross said:
    melgross said:
    melgross said:
    nht said:
    nht said:
    nht said:
    nht said:
    nht said:

    nht said:
    wallym said:
    As a developer, I need both mac and windows support.  To openly campaign to remove Windows compat is to be irresponsible to the marketplace.  If users don't need Windows, that's fine.  Don't penalize me for your lack of needs.
    I don't think you, nor FredFref read the article.
    Why does a dissenting opinion mean they didn't read the article?  Maybe they read, disagreed with the basic premise "cross-platform software compatibility is now mostly irrelevant to the wider user base" and everything that follows.  Especially since you had a poll, found 35% that said, yes they needed windows and then proceeded to hand wave that away as AI readers aren't a representative sample.  Which begs the question of WHY RUN THE POLL IN THE FIRST PLACE?

    The next assertion "for Apple's biggest user base, the need for Windows compatibility isn't the same as it is for the main readers of this site" is fabricated out of thin air and has zero supporting data.  Whether true or not it's based on nothing but speculation.

    If the primary uses of the Macs are Pro and everyone else migrates to iPads then a significant fraction of Mac users (dare I say 35%) will want x86 compatibility.

    But, nope...because they disagree they didn't read the article.
    That's not why I said that, and you know it. And, there's a lot more to this quote of mine than what you clipped out. And, I didn't even say anything about the ludicrous assumption that this article is a "campaign" to remove Windows compatibility.

    It wasn't handwaved away. What it is, is that 35% of the user base that reads AI doesn't need it, which is an overly conservative estimate of what the larger user base needs and does with their machines, and you know this as well, based on your own interactions with the rest of the AI readership. And, even if you translate it literally, it does mean that the majority doesn't care about Windows on the Mac.
    Why run the poll and then disregard it?  So what if 35% isn't the majority?  It's still a large part of the user base.   

    And how do you know that it is "an overly conservative estimate of what the larger user base needs"?  On what data is this assertion based on?  Why do you assume that the majority of your readers are pros?  Why did you not include in your survey to self identify if they were pros or just general users?  Never mind that these polls are generally horridly misleading anyway.

    The article, and you, would like to make it seem like it's 0.35% of the user base to sell the idea that x86 compatibility is no longer needed.  Apple may have a good idea as to the number but you don't.  Moreover you ignored the entire enterprise market because it's inconvenient.  Does IBM and other major Mac deployments believe x86 compatibility is irrelevant?  I have no idea and neither do you.  It would have been fairly easy to reach out to IT folks highlighted in past articles and ask "hey, is x86 compatibility important to your Mac enterprise deployment?"

    Nope.

    But hey...35% is an overly conservative estimate of what the larger user base needs...
    Regarding the bolded section, we are, and your own supposition of how that is going so far is wrong because what they care about so far is iOS development and general productivity. We'll see how it goes in total when we're done.

    In regards to our audience, exactly who do you think AppleInsider is read by far, far more? College grads with advanced degrees, industry folk, designers and whatnot, or the "new Apple user" which is iOS centric, where the iPhone is a halo for the Mac and not the other way around?
    And the demographics for Mac users are what?  Gee maybe folks who are "college grads with advanced degrees, industry folk, designers and whatnot"?  

    Nah.

    I will assert, based on personal experience, that there are very few enterprise iOS developers that don't care about MS project, DOORS and a bevy of windows/x86 corporate tools...still dependent on Excel with macros.  People send me a lot of stuff in Visio to boot.  Also, most of us aren't iOS developers but enterprise developers and the docker tool chain is a significant part of devops.
    Yeah. we're not done. So far, we've spoken to IBM, Cisco, and Deloitte. There are about eight more on the docket. The point of this article, stands, though, that there is a line, where below it, the need for Windows is non-existent.
    And you have failed to show where that line is.  Again, is the AI demographic you just stated significantly different than that of Mac users?  Or have most of the "new Apple users" that don't frequent AI already moved to the iPad or never bought a Mac in the first place and have a windows laptop somewhere?
    I'm not really sure what you're asking, here.

    We didn't set out to draw precisely where the line is, so there is no failure to show something that we didn't set out to show. The piece is more to remind folks that there is a line, even though that there is the assumption that Windows compatibility is everything to everybody. We were pretty clear in the end of the piece in regards to the Mac Pro maybe never shifting.

    Who do you think reads AI? Do you not think it's primarily Apple devout for decades? William addresses this in the piece, somewhat, in regards to who reads AI. Who reads AI  should be apparent from the forums at least. Based on what we know, the "average" AI reader has been in the Apple ecosystem for well over a decade, is pretty heavily technologically savvy, has many Apple devices and has for ages, well before the iPhone 3gs, iPad, and iPhone 6 explosions in Apple user volume.

    If we could tap into 1% of the "new" Apple customer, we'd be sitting on a gold mine. Most of the new Apple users bought an iPhone and have just that so aren't relevant to this particular conversation, or got an iPhone or iPad and said "hey, this Mac thing might be pretty great" rather than the other way around like it was a decade ago.
    This is the point.  The article (and you) argues that the poll results are irrelevant (ie "overly conservative") because it does not represent the "larger user base needs".  I argue that the AI demographic more closely matches that of Mac users than the larger "new Apple users" and therefore not necessarily "overly conservative".

    If around a third of the prospective user base needs a feature it sure as hell isn't a minor feature.  There isn't any "assumption that Windows compatibility is everything to everybody" but that a significant part of the Mac user base (say closer to 35% than 3.5%) wants that feature.

    There is nothing an ARM based Mac does that an ARM based iPad Pro couldn't do with a couple further tweaks to iOS.

    So why go through the disruption of a significant processor change and leave the Mac lineup half Intel and half ARM?
    We didn't say they were irrelevant, and I'm not sure why you keep saying that. What they are is overly tilted in favor of virtualization and windows compatibility given what we know about who reads and interacts with AppleInsider. And, even given that, the majority still isn't doing it, and it isn't close.

    At no point are we saying that there won't be disruption.

    And as far as why do it? You just have to look to the last two major Mac processor shifts -- Vendors not delivering what they promise. 
    Again, how do you know the poll is “overly tilted in favor of virtualization and windows compatibility“ when those that read AI tend NOT to be the “new Apple” crowd and more of the “old Apple” crowd that owns more than just iOS devices?  In other words the AI demographic more closely matches the Mac demographic than it does the “new Apple” demographic.

    You keep harping on “majority” and trying to avoid admitting that 35% is significant enough percentage to warrant keeping that feature.  Which is why you want to call 35% results to be “overly tilted”.  

    While intel faltered on 10nm it looks like Ice Lake will finally fulfill those promises and Intel has steadily improved power per watt on 14nm.  Further it seems that Intel has been fairly responsive to Apple and my guess is that the customer that requested lakefiejld processor (bigLittle) from Intel was Apple.  Or they will apply Foveros to stack something like T2 with Intel cores to reduce footprint.

    Intel had a bad few years...just like with Itanium.  It’s fashionable to bag on Intel right now and who knows maybe the new Ice Lakes won’t hit 18% IPC improvements.  I’m guessing Intel is back on track
    I've already addressed this in some depth, but here it is again: The AI demo is the high end, tech savvy part of the Mac market. You know, the part of the Mac market that knows that the feature exists, and has the aptitude and/or need to do so. The numbers are right in front of you. If 2/3 of the tech savvy users don't use it, do you honestly think that the new Apple users do in a higher percentage, or even the same? 100% of the Mac using population used USB-A when the 2016 MacBook Pro came out, and Apple shifted anyway. 100% of Mac users used ADB before the iMac, and Apple shifted anyway. Do you think that 35% is going to slow them down on a shift that they want to make to not be beholden to Intel?

    Intel hasn't had a "bad few years." It's had a bad 2011-2019 and 10nm is literally, three years late. For the last eight years, it hasn't set a deadline for release that it's made. It was less time in 94, and in 06 where deadlines weren't being met when the other shifts were made.

    We don't get to say what Apple keeps and what doesn't, and this still isn't some kind of pitch for Apple to do so. It is an observation about why it probably will. There are enough signposts on the road that an ARM Mac is coming. You're welcome to ignore them at your leisure.

    Look, I get that you don't like it. I get that you don't want to see it. I get that you use it, and 35% of the AI demo does. I use it. But, none of that matters to Apple one bit, and you know it.
    You’re ignoring a number of things. As I mentioned in a post that hasn’t been answered, a lot of Mac users boot into Windows because of games. That’s not a trivial number. It can easily account for a large part of that 35%. Not everyone who does something is tech savvy. Installing Windows isn’t that hard.

    maybe there are signposts, and maybe it’s just a desire to see signposts. We don’t know.

    if Apple doesn’t care, then why do they do it, and why do they maintain it?
    They don't do a lot of maintenance on Boot Camp, because the thermal characteristics on the MacBook Pro running Windows are pretty bad. Also, until the hardware changed, the 13-inch MacBook Pro couldn't use an eGPU in it either.

    Apple cares about what it wants to care about, The whims change, and have always done so.

    And no, we aren't ignoring that. It isn't hard to do so, but there are technical hurdles, not the least of which is Windows not being free.
    Still, they always do what they have to to keep it compatible, and a lot of people use it. People who game don’t care about the cost of Windows.
    People who game don't buy a MacBook, MBA, or MacBook Pro to do so.
    You also get it backwards. Mac users who want to game, install Windows in Bootcamp, not the other way around. If you guys give it just a tiny amount of thought, you’d get it.
    Nope, we’ve given it a lot of thought - but thanks for your concern.

    Some do. Most don’t .
    And people think I’m snarky. And no, you obviously have given it almost no thought, or you would understand that it’s very likely that most Bootcamp Windows installations are for gaming, not for professional purposes.
    Bootcamp Windows installations are absolutely for professional purposes more than gaming. This entire thread is full of the former, and almost none of the latter -- for reasons I've discussed previously.

    Even if you want the benefit of the doubt and assume an equal distribution of gaming and professional needs, it is still 2:1 in favor of people NOT doing any kind of virtualization, or native execution of Windows on Mac.
    Do you actually have proof of that? That would possibly 35 millions people using Windows on their Mac for business. Most everyone I know who used to do that, no longer do so. I’m sure a fair amount do.
  • Reply 139 of 154
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,895member
    Soli said:
    melgross said:
    Soli said:
    melgross said:
    Soli said:
    WinPC gamers care about Macs, much less lower-end Mac notebooks? That's news to me.
    You’re getting it backwards. Mac users who want to play games install Windows in Bootcamp for that purpose.
    1) You said "people who game" and referred to WinPC gaming. Do you really think that Mac-based WinPC gamers are that important to Apple that they'd stiffle and hinder the Mac platform to cater to that demographic at the cost of expanding and improving the platform? I don't.

    2) Again, how many of these hardcore WinPC games on Macs are using 12" MacBooks or 13" MacBook Airs and why would Apple care if they went away or had to move to MacBook Pros?
    We’re talking about Bootcamp. Continuing it, and making sure it maintains compatibility has nothing to do with stifling, or hindering the Mac platform. Like it or not, Apple doesn’t sell enough Macs for most major gaming companies to release games developed directly on the Mac platform, despite a couple of major gaming platforms available.

    recently, when the number of Macs running around the world was given by Apple, it was the same 100 million as a few years ago. I expected at least 20 to 30 million more. That’s a drop in the bucket when compared to the windows platform. So gamers who own Macs, rather than Windows machines, need to install Windows in Bootcamp in order  to get most major games. 

    You are deliberately trying to confuse the issue by using terms like “hardcore WinPC”. It’s gamers. Period! The fact that most games are in Windows, doesn’t make someone a hardcore gamer because they want to play them. And it doesn’t make those games hardcore because they’re on the Windows platform.

    apple has always been skittish about Mac gaming. Partly because the Mac was called a toy computer for many years, and Apple feared by encouraging gaming, that reputation would just be locked in. So while they had several aborted attempts that were hailed by the community, they never lasted very long. iOS has, if anything, allowed Apple to deflect it further away from the Mac.

    so many people who have Macs, and want to game, install Windows. To them, it’s no different than buying a game machine.

    if you knew much about the gaming community, you would know that it’s just a small percentage that buy big, expensive, gaming rigs. By far, most play on modest computers no better than an Apple laptop, though most Windows machines do have somewhat better specs for less money. So, whatever Mac is owned is potentially a game machine. Sure, the Macbook is a slow machine for all software, and doesn’t make a great gaming machine either. But Windows runs apps faster on a Mac, any Mac, than MacOS does, and this is well known.
    We're talking about what Apple's future path is likely to be and you have some odd "one-drop" notion that if you can make a case for a single user wanting to use Windows to as a gaming machine on a lower-end Mac that Apple would never consider adding ARM-based Macs to their line up pool... and that's just ridiculous.

    PS: I don't expect that I'd even be the target market for such a Mac and I'm clearly not seeing a potential future that appeals to my personal needs. I'm excited about the 16" MBP rumours and I see no path forward for me except the largest and one of the more expensive x86_64-based MBPs for the foreseeable future.
    A single user? Where do you get that from?

    these are two issues. Bootcamp is a fairly simple simple solution for Apple. Having an ARM based Mac is a very complex solution for them. The two aren’t comparable.

    and I’ve never said, or even implied that Apple can’t have an ARM based Mac, just that it’s going to be difficult. I’ve come up with ways they can, but it seems as though the ARM crowd isn’t interested in hearing that this week I’ll be a complex problem for Apple to solve. But hey, maybe in September they’ll announce something.
  • Reply 140 of 154
    mattinozmattinoz Posts: 1,140member
    Soli said:
    I've read the back and forth among respected members/veterans of the AI community.   I, also go way back with Apple: 1978.   I've watched Apple release, then deprecate too many things to count -- No Sure Shitlock!  

    But, my gut tells me that Apple will release a non-Intel Mac (in addition to their Intel Macs) -- because it takes them in a direction (total control) they want to go.   Apple can walk, chew gum and juggle at the same time, so they're capable of it.

    If they fail, they will have pissed away several 10s or hundreds of millions of dollars -- but, even that won't be a total loss.

    As for the non-Intel chip, I don't think it will be an A chip...  There are several reasons:  1) They can produce a chip customized to what Macs do/need (and then some);  2) From a PR perspective it is important to release a non-Intel Mac with a serious commitment and raison d'être.
    I find it weird that so many people on this forum feel that for an ARM-based Mac to exist that an Intel-based Mac can't -or- that so many can only see it within the scope of an A-series chip, which often gets argued as not having enough RAM or memory bandwidth compared be in a traditional PC.
    How are they going to cope if Apple put both ARM and Intel in one machine?
    I mean more than the current T series and it's tiny strip of interface.
Sign In or Register to comment.