... Steve Jobs famously said that Apple is a software company that makes hardware. That is true, but it isn't nearly as true as Microsoft being the epitome of that. ...
I think that phrase makes a lot of people to believe that Apple isn't strong in Hardware. It is a controversial time to talk about this though.
I'm not sure what AI is quoting from Jobs here, but Xerox PARC legend Alan Kay said: "People who are really serious about software should make their own hardware." Jobs and early Apple culture really admired Kay and recruited him to Apple. Regardless of which way people spin it, Apple undoubtedly makes most of its money from hardware revenue, and they are also the leader of this space, which the rest of the industry routinely copies or at the very least takes its cues from; one Chinese knockoff CEO going to so far as to say Apple is the "master".
“Steve Jobs famously said that Apple is a software company that makes hardware. That is true, but it isn't nearly as true as Microsoft being the epitome of that.”
How can MS epitomise this model with 0% of shipping devices using it? With less than 10% of Apple’s shipping devices not using full stack integration, I’d say Apple epitomises the model.
Apple has a big decision to make; how much of that 8-10% should they transfer to their own silicon? With Adobe standing in the way, and their failure to support alternatives with pro cloud services, how much could they even if they wanted to?
... Steve Jobs famously said that Apple is a software company that makes hardware. That is true, but it isn't nearly as true as Microsoft being the epitome of that. ...
I think that phrase makes a lot of people to believe that Apple isn't strong in Hardware. It is a controversial time to talk about this though.
I'm not sure what AI is quoting from Jobs here, but Xerox PARC legend Alan Kay said: "People who are really serious about software should make their own hardware." Jobs and early Apple culture really admired Kay and recruited him to Apple. Regardless of which way people spin it, Apple undoubtedly makes most of its money from hardware revenue, and they are also the leader of this space, which the rest of the industry routinely copies or at the very least takes its cues from; one Chinese knockoff CEO going to so far as to say Apple is the "master".
I don't think Apple makes sub-par hardware, good software needs decent hardware to achieve perfect experience. Apple had to use its own hardware to do business while Microsoft can just buy Dell products. However, there are faster products in every category, which I think is the reason why people jumped on this excuse, and macOS is the thing that makes the difference.
Apple's end goal is to make hardware that's well-rounded instead of pure performance-driven (Including Mac Pro), which to some that's their definitive goal, including some Mac users.
Myself, I don't know, if you're really digging down into hardware then it's more about design choices rather than spec-wars.
I don’t see how people can whinge about low-travel physical keyboards whilst supporting touch-keyboards. If people are so dead set on pointer support, perhaps a virtual trackpad (like holding the space bar on iPhone) can be provided by extending the FaceID VCSEL for Leap Motion-like gestures to detect fingers hovering above the keyboard.
Apple NEEDS to step up their game with macOS, particularly Finder and making System Preferences launch faster. These seriously feel neglected.
And I love the Dock, but continue to feel Windows die-hards see it as a cartoon, non-Pro interface. Maybe have a "Pro" configuration — the same great macOS, but configured with a more Pro appearance with the flip of a switch, much like they have the "Simple Finder" mode.
No idea what you're referring to with System Preferences -- it loads instantly for me. Just opened it and bounced around all the panes, no issues.
Also, it would be an absolutely terribly idea to turn macOS's finder & Dock into something Windows people are more comfortable with. That would be moving backwards. The correct solution is for them to use & learn macOS, not make macOS more like Windows. At work our client just upgraded their in-house notebooks to Windows 10, so I use both. I find it's "Dock" (Start Menu, task bar, system tray) bothersome to the extreme, despite being a Windows user going back to 3.1.
I never said "make it like Windows", but the default settings, like the scaling Dock, are some of the features that professional enviros immediately disable. I'm suggesting adding a stock config that make these common changes with a single click.
And yes. SysPrefs has always been dog-slow, but powerful machines (8GB RAM, newest SSDs?) may obscure how slow it is by making it load quickly. That doesn't mean it is fast in every machine.
You are wrong. It is *possible* for it to be slow- I've seen it - but always when the Mac was heavily loaded, with a LOT of paging activity.
I just tested this several times, on a 2012MBPr 15" running High Sierra. Lots of apps running, but not a lot of paging. First run was no slower than subsequent ones, each taking about half a second to draw the window completely and be ready to respond. The 2018 15" running Mojave is the same.
Microsoft has worked with chip manufacturers for a custom chip to do exactly what Microsoft needs
This is interesting because, does Microsoft has the scale Apple have though? Are they going to absorb the loss on chip order?
I doubt they'll have any losses on chip orders. On co-developed chips, it's not like they'd have minimum orders. Besides, MS reference designs will slide into mainstream OEM designs and that's where the larger chip orders will appear. When OEM's like HP, Dell, Asus, etc. start pushing out their interpretations of MS' latest thats when these designs will gain traction. By the time MS's future devices hit the market, I'd bet the major OEM's will have their variations ready shortly thereafter. All my opinion of course, but I don't think I'm off by much if at all.
You're just making stuff up ("not like they'd have minimum orders" and "reference design"). At this time nobody knows exactly what "co-developed" means. They might be available later to OEMs, or they might not. They might have substantial amounts of newly designed logic, or not. (And thus cost to develop might be high or low.)
My personal prediction, based on what they've done over the last few years, is that it will NOT be available to others. And I do not expect them to recoup a lot of investment in hardware from their fairly pitiful sales, though they might recover enough, depending on how big their investment was - and I expect it to be small.
Microsoft has worked with chip manufacturers for a custom chip to do exactly what Microsoft needs
This is interesting because, does Microsoft has the scale Apple have though? Are they going to absorb the loss on chip order?
I doubt they'll have any losses on chip orders. On co-developed chips, it's not like they'd have minimum orders. Besides, MS reference designs will slide into mainstream OEM designs and that's where the larger chip orders will appear. When OEM's like HP, Dell, Asus, etc. start pushing out their interpretations of MS' latest thats when these designs will gain traction. By the time MS's future devices hit the market, I'd bet the major OEM's will have their variations ready shortly thereafter. All my opinion of course, but I don't think I'm off by much if at all.
You're just making stuff up ("not like they'd have minimum orders" and "reference design"). At this time nobody knows exactly what "co-developed" means. They might be available later to OEMs, or they might not. They might have substantial amounts of newly designed logic, or not. (And thus cost to develop might be high or low.)
My personal prediction, based on what they've done over the last few years, is that it will NOT be available to others. And I do not expect them to recoup a lot of investment in hardware from their fairly pitiful sales, though they might recover enough, depending on how big their investment was - and I expect it to be small.
What? Did you miss where I said that was my opinion? Regardless of what you think co-developed means, I'm pretty freakin' sure it doesn't mean MS has a required minimum order from Qualcomm. That would be ludicrous. Almost as ludicrous as thinking the SQ1 wouldn't be available for MS OEM partners to use. It's almost assured MS has had these chips in their partners hands in anticipation of them coming out with their own devices. Microsoft's Surface line has always their reference designs for OEM's. It was one of the reasons for the creation of the Surface line. I thought that was common knowledge. But hey, if you won't take my word for it, maybe you'll take this guy's word:
Microsoft has worked with chip manufacturers for a custom chip to do exactly what Microsoft needs
This is interesting because, does Microsoft has the scale Apple have though? Are they going to absorb the loss on chip order?
I doubt they'll have any losses on chip orders. On co-developed chips, it's not like they'd have minimum orders. Besides, MS reference designs will slide into mainstream OEM designs and that's where the larger chip orders will appear. When OEM's like HP, Dell, Asus, etc. start pushing out their interpretations of MS' latest thats when these designs will gain traction. By the time MS's future devices hit the market, I'd bet the major OEM's will have their variations ready shortly thereafter. All my opinion of course, but I don't think I'm off by much if at all.
You're just making stuff up ("not like they'd have minimum orders" and "reference design"). At this time nobody knows exactly what "co-developed" means. They might be available later to OEMs, or they might not. They might have substantial amounts of newly designed logic, or not. (And thus cost to develop might be high or low.)
My personal prediction, based on what they've done over the last few years, is that it will NOT be available to others. And I do not expect them to recoup a lot of investment in hardware from their fairly pitiful sales, though they might recover enough, depending on how big their investment was - and I expect it to be small.
What? Did you miss where I said that was my opinion?
No. Perhaps I was too terse. The items I put in parentheses were claims of fact (not opinion) that you made, which I believe you can't back up. Minimum orders are common for custom parts, and I am not aware of anything that would substantiate the claim that Surface products are "reference designs" as the term is used in this industry. In particular, the video you attached makes no such claim. Rather, Nadella says he wants their designs to inspire copies. That's not at all the same thing, and especially it does not imply that the work MS put into their custom chips (which may be significant, or not) is available to competitors.
Regardless of what you think co-developed means, I'm pretty freakin' sure it doesn't mean MS has a required minimum order from Qualcomm. That would be ludicrous. Almost as ludicrous as thinking the SQ1 wouldn't be available for MS OEM partners to use. It's almost assured MS has had these chips in their partners hands in anticipation of them coming out with their own devices. Microsoft's Surface line has always their reference designs for OEM's. It was one of the reasons for the creation of the Surface line. I thought that was common knowledge. But hey, if you won't take my word for it, maybe you'll take this guy's word: [vid link removed]
Nothing there backs your claims at all. Do you have any actual information that suggests that MS is sharing designs (system- or chip-level) with OEMs?
Apple NEEDS to step up their game with macOS, particularly Finder and making System Preferences launch faster. These seriously feel neglected.
And I love the Dock, but continue to feel Windows die-hards see it as a cartoon, non-Pro interface. Maybe have a "Pro" configuration — the same great macOS, but configured with a more Pro appearance with the flip of a switch, much like they have the "Simple Finder" mode.
The way the Finder appears to work is outdated and outmoded. People here will disagree, but IMO it’s biggest flaw is that it purposely relies on the user to manage and organize files manually. That’s OK when you’ve only got a few hundred or even a few thousand documents to manage.
But when you’ve got hundreds of thousands or millions of files to manage, the overhead required to keep all those documents organized consumes too much time. Would anyone here like to manage their own iTunes library? No? Well, you can thank Apple for managing it for us.
I can see no good reason that this cannot be accomplished with Pages, Numbers, or Word documents just as easily. With metadata tags, documents from different applications can be managed and grouped together intelligently.
MacOS can do some of this but not very well. And certainly not at scale.
My wife was given a new HP computer with Windows 10 for work and she hates it. Last night she tried to scan a picture and crop it and it was so frustrating. Doing it on my Mac was quite easy. I, too, am glad Microsoft is moving into the future, but the company had better continue to work on that crowded interface. It reminds me of iTunes.
That's not a hard thing on Windows 10, but I get it. Maybe she is more used to doing it on a Mac? Maybe just to confused with so many options on the Windows computer over the Mac?
She’s been used to Windows previous OS, but even that caused her some grief. Windows 10 looks great but is again causing her agita. I’ve never had such an issue moving from one MacOS to another. I’ve arranged for her to work with a Windows specialist. 🙏
Apple NEEDS to step up their game with macOS, particularly Finder and making System Preferences launch faster. These seriously feel neglected.
And I love the Dock, but continue to feel Windows die-hards see it as a cartoon, non-Pro interface. Maybe have a "Pro" configuration — the same great macOS, but configured with a more Pro appearance with the flip of a switch, much like they have the "Simple Finder" mode.
There is nothing non-pro about the Dock. It's clean. It's well designed. It's elegant. System icons are conceptually intuitive. Professionals sweat over tiny details on how UX should appear. The MacOS UX Is the result of well educated professionals who have years of experience in designs.
MS UX, on the other hand, is not. It's cartoonish. It fails to be cohesive in computing experience. The UX of touchscreen Win10 is just horrible. This is why we should NEVER have MacOS become a touchscreen OS. It's not productive. It does not improve productivity. It makes them fatigued too soon.
The keyboard issue of key stroke is going to disappear and rapidly as the generation raised on touch grow older. A flat keyboard with virtual keys will be all anyone uses in 10 years less a few diehards.
Almost 15 years ago Google set out on it's Android mission as a buttress against Microsoft blocking their movement in the new mobile space. This week Microsoft embraces Android as the supporting OS for a new Microsoft product line. The times they are a'changing.
Disappointingly, but not surprisingly, it seems that MS did no silicon design work at all, much as I said. What they did, as far as can be discerned from the article quoted here, is not even as much as Apple did with their initial A4 design.
The keyboard issue of key stroke is going to disappear and rapidly as the generation raised on touch grow older. A flat keyboard with virtual keys will be all anyone uses in 10 years less a few diehards.
My concern is the lack of resistance from a solid surface like glass. This added pressure to each keystroke will add up over time and potentially magnify the strain of a very repetitive task like typing. As speech-to-text gets better and better, this might be mitigated, but there are plenty of environments where a massive amount of typing still needs to be done. For the average consumer, the keyboard issues being debated here probably don't matter, but for professionals RSI is a real and growing problem - even I am starting to suffer from it, and I have been careful with my device choices, setup and posture. Over a thirty year period, the small things add up.
So I expect people who do a lot of typing will be investing in external keyboards to a greater extent than they do now. But it irks me a little that the push to this new implementation is ignoring a serious health issue for the majority of the people working to bring it to fruition.
Comments
Apple has a big decision to make; how much of that 8-10% should they transfer to their own silicon? With Adobe standing in the way, and their failure to support alternatives with pro cloud services, how much could they even if they wanted to?
Apple's end goal is to make hardware that's well-rounded instead of pure performance-driven (Including Mac Pro), which to some that's their definitive goal, including some Mac users.
Myself, I don't know, if you're really digging down into hardware then it's more about design choices rather than spec-wars.
Regardless of what you think co-developed means, I'm pretty freakin' sure it doesn't mean MS has a required minimum order from Qualcomm. That would be ludicrous. Almost as ludicrous as thinking the SQ1 wouldn't be available for MS OEM partners to use. It's almost assured MS has had these chips in their partners hands in anticipation of them coming out with their own devices. Microsoft's Surface line has always their reference designs for OEM's. It was one of the reasons for the creation of the Surface line. I thought that was common knowledge. But hey, if you won't take my word for it, maybe you'll take this guy's word:
The way the Finder appears to work is outdated and outmoded. People here will disagree, but IMO it’s biggest flaw is that it purposely relies on the user to manage and organize files manually. That’s OK when you’ve only got a few hundred or even a few thousand documents to manage.
But when you’ve got hundreds of thousands or millions of files to manage, the overhead required to keep all those documents organized consumes too much time. Would anyone here like to manage their own iTunes library? No? Well, you can thank Apple for managing it for us.
I can see no good reason that this cannot be accomplished with Pages, Numbers, or Word documents just as easily. With metadata tags, documents from different applications can be managed and grouped together intelligently.
MacOS can do some of this but not very well. And certainly not at scale.
MS UX, on the other hand, is not. It's cartoonish. It fails to be cohesive in computing experience. The UX of touchscreen Win10 is just horrible. This is why we should NEVER have MacOS become a touchscreen OS. It's not productive. It does not improve productivity. It makes them fatigued too soon.
Almost 15 years ago Google set out on it's Android mission as a buttress against Microsoft blocking their movement in the new mobile space. This week Microsoft embraces Android as the supporting OS for a new Microsoft product line. The times they are a'changing.
So I expect people who do a lot of typing will be investing in external keyboards to a greater extent than they do now. But it irks me a little that the push to this new implementation is ignoring a serious health issue for the majority of the people working to bring it to fruition.