Agree with this. Don't think Intel is going anywhere soon, but if you have stock I think now is a good time to sell. Intel is vulnerable right now.
There's a lot of laziness and content out there right now. Apple Silicon is going to wake a few business units up at MS and Intel, at least it better for their sake.
This isn't true at all. It doesn't solve the main reason why PC users don't buy Macs.
I think you missed the point here. This really has nothing to do with Apple gaining sales or users, it has more to do with Apple awakening OEMs from their x86-64 induced comas. The writer opines that Apple Silicon will demonstrate just how powerful and efficient ARM-based computers can be while running a real traditional operating system.
This, if anything, will cause a lot of OEMs to take note and wonder why Microsoft hasn't been able to do the same with Windows as Apple has done with macOS... and should light a fire under Microsoft's ass to get ARM-based Windows up to par. Apple's DTK, which runs the iPad Pro SoC (A12Z), is completely capable of translating and executing applications compiled for Intel-based Macs with a slight performance hit. That's a "mobile" ARM-based SoC running native x68-64 code!!! With very usable real world performance. "Why hasn't Microsoft been able to do the same with WindARM? Why is it such a clunky incompatible mess?", they'll ask.
Also, Apple Silicon will essentially allow them to make Mac form factors and have specs that other OEMs will not be able to reproduce with WIntel-based systems.
If the Apple Silicon ran x86-64 code without translation, it would be an emulator. Instead, the majority of the code is translated from x86-64 into ARM instructions during installation, which will definitely slow down the usual installation: the DTK CPU doesn't run anything else natively. That being said, with the available information, it suggests Apple has Rosetta 2.0 performing rather well.
Sorry I didn’t mean to imply that Apple Silicon ran x86-64 code natively. I know it is translated. The point was to show what Apple is capable of doing and to wonder why Microsoft isn’t able to do the same?
How many PC laptops were sold last year? 170 - 190 million or so? And Apple maybe 15 million? But Apple also sold about 50 million iPads. So Apple really has about 1/3 of the portable computing market share, and that is big enough to indicate that there is a truly MASS market for their products and services. It’s not a niche. There may always be a good sized market for certain niches but improving the battery life and speed of its portable products and its ability to refresh its products more frequently can only make them more attractive and sell even better IMO.
Those 50 million iPads can't run the software that the 170-190 million PC laptops run. Until they can, there will never be a MASS market for their products. Look guys, Apple and its fan community have been claiming "the iPad can replace most PCs because most PCs are trash and most PC users are semi-literate yokels who only use their PCs to surf the web for NASCAR results anyway" since 2010. It is not true.
iPads don't have the PERSONAL COMPUTING functionality that most PERSONAL COMPUTER users need. That is why NO ONE claims that an iPad can replace a MacBook Air, which until recently had a dual core processor that barely ran at 1Ghz. They only claim that it can replace Windows PCs because they dislike and do not respect Windows users.
Even if they had the PERSONAL COMPUTING functionality, they can't run PERSONAL COMPUTING software. Indeed, even MacBook Pros can't run much of the software that Windows computers run.
ARM-based Macs are going to have the same basic problems that Intel-based Macs did. 1. Cost (twice as much as Wintel PCs that have the same CPU/RAM/storage configuration) 2. Software compatibility. It was a huge problem for power/professional users back when Wintel and Macs were on the same hardware stack and it is going to become a much bigger problem now that Mac architecture is going to resemble the iPad and Apple TV more than it resembles Wintel/WinAMD.
Guys, you are going to need to take off the Apple-colored goggles for a second and ask yourselves: "Why do so many people buy Windows PCs instead of Macs and how will Apple adopting ARM change this?" instead of just presuming that 90% of Windows users are cheaper than dirt and not much smarter.
Careful, you’re making reasonable arguments about Apple taking serious risks here, and that triggers the Apple faithful... You’re supposed to be blindly confident that whatever Apple do, it’ll turn out like the success of iPhone from 2007.
One way for Apple to take more business from Intel would be to put Apple Silicon in Apple datacenter and offer an "iCloud Pro" that is a more user-friendly analog to AWS (honestly, it would not be hard AT ALL to be more user-friendly than AWS).
I’ve been saying for years that it’s meaningful that Apple data-centers are composed of non-Apple machines running non-Apple operating systems. Maybe that’s the real reason for the Mac Plutocrat being built...
How many PC laptops were sold last year? 170 - 190 million or so? And Apple maybe 15 million? But Apple also sold about 50 million iPads. So Apple really has about 1/3 of the portable computing market share, and that is big enough to indicate that there is a truly MASS market for their products and services. It’s not a niche. There may always be a good sized market for certain niches but improving the battery life and speed of its portable products and its ability to refresh its products more frequently can only make them more attractive and sell even better IMO.
Those 50 million iPads can't run the software that the 170-190 million PC laptops run. Until they can, there will never be a MASS market for their products. Look guys, Apple and its fan community have been claiming "the iPad can replace most PCs because most PCs are trash and most PC users are semi-literate yokels who only use their PCs to surf the web for NASCAR results anyway" since 2010. It is not true.
iPads don't have the PERSONAL COMPUTING functionality that most PERSONAL COMPUTER users need. That is why NO ONE claims that an iPad can replace a MacBook Air, which until recently had a dual core processor that barely ran at 1Ghz. They only claim that it can replace Windows PCs because they dislike and do not respect Windows users.
Even if they had the PERSONAL COMPUTING functionality, they can't run PERSONAL COMPUTING software. Indeed, even MacBook Pros can't run much of the software that Windows computers run.
ARM-based Macs are going to have the same basic problems that Intel-based Macs did. 1. Cost (twice as much as Wintel PCs that have the same CPU/RAM/storage configuration) 2. Software compatibility. It was a huge problem for power/professional users back when Wintel and Macs were on the same hardware stack and it is going to become a much bigger problem now that Mac architecture is going to resemble the iPad and Apple TV more than it resembles Wintel/WinAMD.
Guys, you are going to need to take off the Apple-colored goggles for a second and ask yourselves: "Why do so many people buy Windows PCs instead of Macs and how will Apple adopting ARM change this?" instead of just presuming that 90% of Windows users are cheaper than dirt and not much smarter.
Careful, you’re making reasonable arguments about Apple taking serious risks here, and that triggers the Apple faithful... You’re supposed to be blindly confident that whatever Apple do, it’ll turn out like the success of iPhone from 2007.
.. or the iPad, or the Apple Watch, or AirPods, or Apple Services ...
LOL Linuxplatform got his ass handed to him. Ouch!
Utterly non-constructive commentary. Linuxplatform’s commentary might not be exactly on target for the various goals Apple fans have here, but they were on target when responding to the uber-fanboy commentary of Apple industry dominance that has no basis in reality.
How many PC laptops were sold last year? 170 - 190 million or so? And Apple maybe 15 million? But Apple also sold about 50 million iPads. So Apple really has about 1/3 of the portable computing market share, and that is big enough to indicate that there is a truly MASS market for their products and services. It’s not a niche. There may always be a good sized market for certain niches but improving the battery life and speed of its portable products and its ability to refresh its products more frequently can only make them more attractive and sell even better IMO.
Those 50 million iPads can't run the software that the 170-190 million PC laptops run. Until they can, there will never be a MASS market for their products. Look guys, Apple and its fan community have been claiming "the iPad can replace most PCs because most PCs are trash and most PC users are semi-literate yokels who only use their PCs to surf the web for NASCAR results anyway" since 2010. It is not true.
iPads don't have the PERSONAL COMPUTING functionality that most PERSONAL COMPUTER users need. That is why NO ONE claims that an iPad can replace a MacBook Air, which until recently had a dual core processor that barely ran at 1Ghz. They only claim that it can replace Windows PCs because they dislike and do not respect Windows users.
Even if they had the PERSONAL COMPUTING functionality, they can't run PERSONAL COMPUTING software. Indeed, even MacBook Pros can't run much of the software that Windows computers run.
ARM-based Macs are going to have the same basic problems that Intel-based Macs did. 1. Cost (twice as much as Wintel PCs that have the same CPU/RAM/storage configuration) 2. Software compatibility. It was a huge problem for power/professional users back when Wintel and Macs were on the same hardware stack and it is going to become a much bigger problem now that Mac architecture is going to resemble the iPad and Apple TV more than it resembles Wintel/WinAMD.
Guys, you are going to need to take off the Apple-colored goggles for a second and ask yourselves: "Why do so many people buy Windows PCs instead of Macs and how will Apple adopting ARM change this?" instead of just presuming that 90% of Windows users are cheaper than dirt and not much smarter.
Careful, you’re making reasonable arguments about Apple taking serious risks here, and that triggers the Apple faithful... You’re supposed to be blindly confident that whatever Apple do, it’ll turn out like the success of iPhone from 2007.
and the iPad and the Apple Watch and the Services division.
But given your posting history, if you hadn't agreed with him then I'd be worried that I was wrong …
LOL Linuxplatform got his ass handed to him. Ouch!
Utterly non-constructive commentary. Linuxplatform’s commentary might not be exactly on target for the various goals Apple fans have here, but they were on target when responding to the uber-fanboy commentary of Apple industry dominance that has no basis in reality.
LinuxPlatform once said that Apple would never make their own chips because developers would have to rewrite all their apps from scratch. The problem isn't that his commentary 'might not be exactly on target'; the problem is that he's basing his commentary on notions that are easily proven to be wrong.
Case in point: he believes that Apple is going to put a mobile chip into a desktop machine, when Apple has said a number of time that it will be building a completely different line of chips for the desktops/laptops.
That's why is ass is in pieces: his technical knowledge of Apple's strategy is about the same level as yours.
Microsoft gave up making smartphones and mobile software early on. Apple will give up the cpu business in couple of years when they realize intel and amd are light years ahead in terms of performance. Apple are attempting to control everything byt with the cpu this will be a failure similar to PowerPC.
on another note, I’m still waiting for the 720p webcam to be replace in the MacBook Pro, and the missing ports. shame on them for crippling the Mac
“On another note” -> On a completely unrelated trolling note, you mean?
And your first paragraph makes no sense. The situation is completely different. First of all, Apple didn’t make PowerPC chips, they bought them. Secondly their SoC business is highly, highly advantageous to Intel, in fact they have demonstrated to be ahead of them on many aspects. Thirdly, they are a 1.5 trillion dollar company now and they have the ability to pull this off & apply their SoC business to all their products. Lastly: who’s gonna be right, this 1.5 trillion dollar company and over a decade of experience with making SoC’s, or some anonymous dude on AppleInsider? They know way more than you and I.
Not about GUI design they don’t. Not any more. Well, maybe you’re as uninformed as current Apple “experts”...
The point I’m trying to make is that today’s Apple isn’t yesterday’s Apple, AND: Assuming the same level of expertise in EVERYTHING is a flawed argument, especially when the respect Apple earned in the past has been eroding. iOS is buggy as hell. Mac OS is catching up in terms of bugs. The pathological obsession with compact and thin hardware has repeatedly caused serious hardware performance, longevity, and therefore sales problems for Apple.
These are not good signs.
Ultimately, the real argument from JLG is whether or not this move to ARM-based CPUs will inspire other industry changes.
I hope it does.
The industry is garbage, compared to what it should be by now.
Apple introduced healthy competition with the iPhone in 2007. It had a major impact on the lazy and user-abusive computer industry. It was good change and it changed a lot (not just mobile; the halo effect was notable)... for a little while.
That’s no longer the case. The “good enough” mentality has reasserted itself in the industry, and Apple has since fallen back to lower effort for higher profits, and their delivery of bugs has increased with their unrealistic pathological Wall Street marketing expectations.
If Apple can trigger another progressive paradigm shift, we will all benefit.
What no one should be arguing is that Apple will, through Apple Silicon, suddenly beat WinTel, Dell, etc in the space where they continue to dominate. There are fanboys making these ridiculous arguments. That’s what LinuxPlatform is getting at.
What we, as Apple customers and Mac users should be concerned about is what desktop marketshare will be lost in this transition of Macs to non-Intel architecture. The move to Intel was a boon for software development and therefore users. This is effectively over. The question is whether development has advanced enough in general to make it less of a barrier to continue maintaining Mac OS ports on the new architecture. Having to purchase and maintain only ONE computer to develop for both Operating Systems is effectively over for future development. Developers frown upon expenses...
Microsoft hasn’t held on to backwards-compatibility just because they’re stupid (though stupidity and lack of vision is certainly an issue there). Industry and businesses relying on old software is a big market and MS have been happy to collect profits from it. They have failed to differentiate between progressive platforms and old platforms, though, and that’s where they continue to fail. Their effort at running x86 software on their ARM OS is something they ought to feel ashamed of. Instead, it’s barely even an issue because they continue to make money on the WinTel market as they always have.
But we’ve seen how Microsoft does things long term: they will keep throwing money at it until their own version of something gains traction and market share. IF there is money to be made in Windows on ARM, they will make it, eventually. Maybe Apple proving that usable x86 emulation is possible will be a fire lit under their complacent but perpetually plotting asses. Maybe not.
How many PC laptops were sold last year? 170 - 190 million or so? And Apple maybe 15 million? But Apple also sold about 50 million iPads. So Apple really has about 1/3 of the portable computing market share, and that is big enough to indicate that there is a truly MASS market for their products and services. It’s not a niche. There may always be a good sized market for certain niches but improving the battery life and speed of its portable products and its ability to refresh its products more frequently can only make them more attractive and sell even better IMO.
Those 50 million iPads can't run the software that the 170-190 million PC laptops run. Until they can, there will never be a MASS market for their products. Look guys, Apple and its fan community have been claiming "the iPad can replace most PCs because most PCs are trash and most PC users are semi-literate yokels who only use their PCs to surf the web for NASCAR results anyway" since 2010. It is not true.
iPads don't have the PERSONAL COMPUTING functionality that most PERSONAL COMPUTER users need. That is why NO ONE claims that an iPad can replace a MacBook Air, which until recently had a dual core processor that barely ran at 1Ghz. They only claim that it can replace Windows PCs because they dislike and do not respect Windows users.
Even if they had the PERSONAL COMPUTING functionality, they can't run PERSONAL COMPUTING software. Indeed, even MacBook Pros can't run much of the software that Windows computers run.
ARM-based Macs are going to have the same basic problems that Intel-based Macs did. 1. Cost (twice as much as Wintel PCs that have the same CPU/RAM/storage configuration) 2. Software compatibility. It was a huge problem for power/professional users back when Wintel and Macs were on the same hardware stack and it is going to become a much bigger problem now that Mac architecture is going to resemble the iPad and Apple TV more than it resembles Wintel/WinAMD.
Guys, you are going to need to take off the Apple-colored goggles for a second and ask yourselves: "Why do so many people buy Windows PCs instead of Macs and how will Apple adopting ARM change this?" instead of just presuming that 90% of Windows users are cheaper than dirt and not much smarter.
Careful, you’re making reasonable arguments about Apple taking serious risks here, and that triggers the Apple faithful... You’re supposed to be blindly confident that whatever Apple do, it’ll turn out like the success of iPhone from 2007.
.. or the iPad, or the Apple Watch, or AirPods, or Apple Services ...
No argument. Those are all entirely unrelated to the WinTel desktop computing market. I hope Apple continues to do well in these areas. The concern is what will happen with desktop computing. See my other comments...
One way for Apple to take more business from Intel would be to put Apple Silicon in Apple datacenter and offer an "iCloud Pro" that is a more user-friendly analog to AWS (honestly, it would not be hard AT ALL to be more user-friendly than AWS).
I’ve been saying for years that it’s meaningful that Apple data-centers are composed of non-Apple machines running non-Apple operating systems. Maybe that’s the real reason for the Mac Plutocrat being built...
Indeed. I think a big part of the reason why it might make sense for Apple Silicon for the Mac Pro is that the same silicon could also end up in the Apple cloud. It's kind of wacky that Apple pays a bunch of money to MS and Amazon for Cloud backend. It might have made sense when Apple was just a little $100 billion market cap company, but at $1.5 trillion, I think Apple ought to be able to handle this internally.
Incidentally, another product that I'm really curious to see evolve with Apple Silicon is the Mac Mini. I salivate at the idea of the rumored 12 core (8 big / 4 little) Mac SOC going into a Mac Mini, especially if entry level price remained at $800 (where currently sits a quad core i3). I could imagine people buying racks of those things.
LOL Linuxplatform got his ass handed to him. Ouch!
Utterly non-constructive commentary. Linuxplatform’s commentary might not be exactly on target for the various goals Apple fans have here, but they were on target when responding to the uber-fanboy commentary of Apple industry dominance that has no basis in reality.
LinuxPlatform once said that Apple would never make their own chips because developers would have to rewrite all their apps from scratch. The problem isn't that his commentary 'might not be exactly on target'; the problem is that he's basing his commentary on notions that are easily proven to be wrong.
Case in point: he believes that Apple is going to put a mobile chip into a desktop machine, when Apple has said a number of time that it will be building a completely different line of chips for the desktops/laptops.
That's why is ass is in pieces: his technical knowledge of Apple's strategy is about the same level as yours.
I understand this issue. Don’t presume to know my awareness or Apple’s strategy.
The fanboy argumentation for Apple beating and wrecking intel is equally unfounded for the same reason: we haven’t seen desktop-designed Apple Silicon.
Even when we do, there’s still the concern of whether the benefit outweighs the risks of developers deciding it’s not worth them continuing to maintain their software and hardware products on the Mac platform (when they make much more money on the Windows platform)... whatever the Windows platform may be in the future.
If Microsoft gets serious about ARM, that might bring back a lot of cross-platform development that may be lost with this Apple transition. It hasn’t happened yet. The concerns are legit. The optimism is legit, but not to the extent some of these guys take it (that this will be wonderful and lead to Apple dominating desktop and server markets just as they did with iOS-based mobile markets).
How many PC laptops were sold last year? 170 - 190 million or so? And Apple maybe 15 million? But Apple also sold about 50 million iPads. So Apple really has about 1/3 of the portable computing market share, and that is big enough to indicate that there is a truly MASS market for their products and services. It’s not a niche. There may always be a good sized market for certain niches but improving the battery life and speed of its portable products and its ability to refresh its products more frequently can only make them more attractive and sell even better IMO.
Those 50 million iPads can't run the software that the 170-190 million PC laptops run. Until they can, there will never be a MASS market for their products. Look guys, Apple and its fan community have been claiming "the iPad can replace most PCs because most PCs are trash and most PC users are semi-literate yokels who only use their PCs to surf the web for NASCAR results anyway" since 2010. It is not true.
iPads don't have the PERSONAL COMPUTING functionality that most PERSONAL COMPUTER users need. That is why NO ONE claims that an iPad can replace a MacBook Air, which until recently had a dual core processor that barely ran at 1Ghz. They only claim that it can replace Windows PCs because they dislike and do not respect Windows users.
Even if they had the PERSONAL COMPUTING functionality, they can't run PERSONAL COMPUTING software. Indeed, even MacBook Pros can't run much of the software that Windows computers run.
ARM-based Macs are going to have the same basic problems that Intel-based Macs did. 1. Cost (twice as much as Wintel PCs that have the same CPU/RAM/storage configuration) 2. Software compatibility. It was a huge problem for power/professional users back when Wintel and Macs were on the same hardware stack and it is going to become a much bigger problem now that Mac architecture is going to resemble the iPad and Apple TV more than it resembles Wintel/WinAMD.
Guys, you are going to need to take off the Apple-colored goggles for a second and ask yourselves: "Why do so many people buy Windows PCs instead of Macs and how will Apple adopting ARM change this?" instead of just presuming that 90% of Windows users are cheaper than dirt and not much smarter.
Careful, you’re making reasonable arguments about Apple taking serious risks here, and that triggers the Apple faithful... You’re supposed to be blindly confident that whatever Apple do, it’ll turn out like the success of iPhone from 2007.
When he's says stuff like Macs cost twice as much as PCs he simply losses all credibility. Then of course when called out for such a blatantly false statement he narrows his argument to "twice as much as Wintel PCs that have the same CPU/RAM/storage configuration", which of course is just misleading since he's no longer comparing the whole computer; things like the color accuracy of the builtin monitor, keyboard backlighting, 1st in class trackpad, TouchID (secure enclave), SSD speeds (processor independent on-the-fly encryption), and Thunderbolt matter to me, while RAW processing power has become LESS important. Oh yeah, I'm a PRO in every sense of the word not a prosumer or consumer. If you truly attempt to match feature for feature in the same form factor the price difference is more like 10% or 20% but you'll still be stuck on Windows.
As for the importance of the PC, its waned over the last decade. People often spend far more time on their smartphones (computer) and tablet (computer) than a laptop or desktop (computer). If anything those devices have become more central to their lives than a traditional PC and the sales trends prove it. My Dad like a lot of people I know has a computer going on ten years, but during that time he's upgraded his iPhone 3x times and his iPad twice, and same is true of my middle aged daughter who is a IT professional, as well as younger members of my extended family who do all sorts of things. While I don't surf the web for NASCAR results, it's easy to forget that computing devices are not just work devices and mobile devices are primarily communication devices.
While iPhone and iPad software is more limited moving the Mac to ARM will already place it within a healthy eco system. While that may not open the Mac to the same diversity of software on the PC it will open the Mac to a massive number of developers, which already includes Microsoft and Adobe. It's also hard to see Apple really losing any of its current developers considering how low the bar will be for moving from x86 to ARM.
iPhone sales almost match the total number of PCs sold in a year. If you throw in iPads Apple sells more iPhones and iPads than the total number of PCs sold in a year. How is that not mass market? And if you think this hasn't had a major impact on the PC market, you're wrong. INTEL/AMD just missed the boat on what is the other half of the PC market, arguably the larger half. What's half of the market worth? Easy, just compare INTELs puny market value to Apple's market value. If fact, if you compare INTEL/AMD/MICROSOFT together to Apple in value or profit the magnitude of how much marketshare they've lost becomes pretty clear.
As for Apple beating WINTEL its just a matter of what's being compared. If you ignore the mobile half of the PC market WINTEL looks pretty good, if you don't then the magnitude of there loss becomes pretty clear.
Going forward INTEL is going to be at a huge disadvantage against Apple simply because they only only have a small fraction of Apple's R&D budget, which cannot be narrowly focused on just a few products which have a level of integration which INTEL could only dream of.
Agree with this. Don't think Intel is going anywhere soon, but if you have stock I think now is a good time to sell. Intel is vulnerable right now.
There's a lot of laziness and content out there right now. Apple Silicon is going to wake a few business units up at MS and Intel, at least it better for their sake.
This isn't true at all. It doesn't solve the main reason why PC users don't buy Macs.
I think you missed the point here. This really has nothing to do with Apple gaining sales or users, it has more to do with Apple awakening OEMs from their x86-64 induced comas. The writer opines that Apple Silicon will demonstrate just how powerful and efficient ARM-based computers can be while running a real traditional operating system.
This, if anything, will cause a lot of OEMs to take note and wonder why Microsoft hasn't been able to do the same with Windows as Apple has done with macOS... and should light a fire under Microsoft's ass to get ARM-based Windows up to par. Apple's DTK, which runs the iPad Pro SoC (A12Z), is completely capable of translating and executing applications compiled for Intel-based Macs with a slight performance hit. That's a "mobile" ARM-based SoC running native x68-64 code!!! With very usable real world performance. "Why hasn't Microsoft been able to do the same with WindARM? Why is it such a clunky incompatible mess?", they'll ask.
Also, Apple Silicon will essentially allow them to make Mac form factors and have specs that other OEMs will not be able to reproduce with WIntel-based systems.
If the Apple Silicon ran x86-64 code without translation, it would be an emulator. Instead, the majority of the code is translated from x86-64 into ARM instructions during installation, which will definitely slow down the usual installation: the DTK CPU doesn't run anything else natively. That being said, with the available information, it suggests Apple has Rosetta 2.0 performing rather well.
Sorry I didn’t mean to imply that Apple Silicon ran x86-64 code natively. I know it is translated. The point was to show what Apple is capable of doing and to wonder why Microsoft isn’t able to do the same?
Well, an interesting question, and while I can't speak to knowing what the strategic objectives are and that's all speculation, I do know quite a lot about the technical bits. Microsoft Windows has an already-established huge set of software written using various compilers from various vendors, including Microsoft's, and quite a bit of hand-coded assembly in a lot of applications. On average, there's not awful lot of assembly in any application, as compilers these days do a darn good job, including Microsoft's. The facts of the matter is Microsoft has top-end compiler people, and has for a very long time: one of Microsoft's biggest software lines has always been the software development tools.
Microsoft has something Apple has never had in-house: an optimized managed runtime complete with a rather powerful SDK using it, in the form of .NET, and now .NET Core (open source). In UWP applications, they're then compiled over to .NET Native, but for all (or pretty much all, if there are any that use hand-coded assembly at all) UWP applications, it literally is just a recompile away for UWP applications, and most .NET applications, as .NET applications are CPU-independent already, except for where they use interop to interface with native code in either the OS or externally-created DLLs.
Does Microsoft have any projects where they're working on a much more efficient ARM-based CPU? I don't have insight into that, I'd have to ask around, but if they're behaving themselves, they'd not tell. It's not worth the risk/time to concern myself with that. Microsoft is working on a quantum computing CPU design in their Research arm: I've interviewed in the past for contracts involved with implementing design tools for that. While they've worked with Qualcomm, the facts of the matter are that Qualcomm haven't put out an ARM CPU of great performance: while Microsoft has the tech talent available to do a Rosetta tool, it's not going to get great performance. One part I don't know about (since I've not bought one, I don't care to investigate) is if Microsoft does any translation of native compiled code now. But, where the input code is of the managed languages using the CLR, there's no need to translate: just do the normal thing done with .NET code on any CPU.
I speculate that Microsoft won't do a Rosetta entirely for business reasons: consider that if they did create one, what priority would there be for other companies to spend any effort at all to recompile (with some changes, because Windows on ARM isn't 100% identical) their applications? Right now, Microsoft isn't even a large vendor for x86/x86-64 PCs that can run Windows, and there are plenty of cheap vendors of them. Because Microsoft hasn't gone out of their way to try to do the Apple route for top-performance ARM-based CPUs on their own, they're caught with the rest of the pack for ARM performance as the best they can hope for at this time. Perhaps Microsoft has gone with an ARM version of the desktop version of Windows (remember, Windows Phone was ARM, and the Windows OS is platform-agnostic at the low level once the small Hardware Abstraction Layer has been built for a given CPU) to keep Intel honest and on their toes. As long as all the other PC vendors keep selling Intel machines and not put their toes in the water of ARM, users can always go the cheaper-for-speed route of Intel. Perhaps Apple's silicon will finally light the fire under the various CPU designers to up their game and help push Intel out of that 8000 pound gorilla status.
LOL Linuxplatform got his ass handed to him. Ouch!
Utterly non-constructive commentary. Linuxplatform’s commentary might not be exactly on target for the various goals Apple fans have here, but they were on target when responding to the uber-fanboy commentary of Apple industry dominance that has no basis in reality.
LinuxPlatform once said that Apple would never make their own chips because developers would have to rewrite all their apps from scratch. The problem isn't that his commentary 'might not be exactly on target'; the problem is that he's basing his commentary on notions that are easily proven to be wrong.
Case in point: he believes that Apple is going to put a mobile chip into a desktop machine, when Apple has said a number of time that it will be building a completely different line of chips for the desktops/laptops.
That's why is ass is in pieces: his technical knowledge of Apple's strategy is about the same level as yours.
I understand this issue. Don’t presume to know my awareness or Apple’s strategy.
Even when we do, there’s still the concern of whether the benefit outweighs the risks of developers deciding it’s not worth them continuing to maintain their software and hardware products on the Mac platform (when they make much more money on the Windows platform)... whatever the Windows platform may be in the future.
I fail to see how the switch from x86 to ARM is really going to affect their decision to stay with the Mac platform. Xcode is processor independent with a level of abstraction from the hardware when writing software, which is why it may be as simply as a recompile or at worst a few days of extra work and recompile.
It's easy to forget how large the iOS install base and eco system is. Going forward the opportunity to deploy on the Mac, iPad and iPhone will be even easier and there is certainly a lot of opportunity there especially for game and creativity app developers. Fortnight runs at up to 120 fps on an iPad Pro so we already know what to expect from the lowest ARM based Mac, which is something my 2020 13" i7 MBP could only dream of.
The iPad Pro can now run Fortnite at 120 frames per second
LOL Linuxplatform got his ass handed to him. Ouch!
Utterly non-constructive commentary. Linuxplatform’s commentary might not be exactly on target for the various goals Apple fans have here, but they were on target when responding to the uber-fanboy commentary of Apple industry dominance that has no basis in reality.
LinuxPlatform once said that Apple would never make their own chips because developers would have to rewrite all their apps from scratch. The problem isn't that his commentary 'might not be exactly on target'; the problem is that he's basing his commentary on notions that are easily proven to be wrong.
Case in point: he believes that Apple is going to put a mobile chip into a desktop machine, when Apple has said a number of time that it will be building a completely different line of chips for the desktops/laptops.
That's why is ass is in pieces: his technical knowledge of Apple's strategy is about the same level as yours.
I understand this issue. Don’t presume to know my awareness or Apple’s strategy.
The fanboy argumentation for Apple beating and wrecking intel is equally unfounded for the same reason: we haven’t seen desktop-designed Apple Silicon.
Even when we do, there’s still the concern of whether the benefit outweighs the risks of developers deciding it’s not worth them continuing to maintain their software and hardware products on the Mac platform (when they make much more money on the Windows platform)... whatever the Windows platform may be in the future.
If Microsoft gets serious about ARM, that might bring back a lot of cross-platform development that may be lost with this Apple transition. It hasn’t happened yet. The concerns are legit. The optimism is legit, but not to the extent some of these guys take it (that this will be wonderful and lead to Apple dominating desktop and server markets just as they did with iOS-based mobile markets).
As far as I can tell, there is near zero effort for Apple developers to move to ASi (hat tip to RayZ2016 for naming), so speculation about MS is misplaced. What Windows OEM's want is higher margins, you know, like Apple derives, and there isn't anyway that happens with an Intel Processor on Board.
MS continues to transition developers and applications to 64 bit and UWP, which is one of the reasons I suspect that Windows 10 developers have such a task ahead of them to transition to ARM; all of that legacy code, some in assembly. Apple doesn't have that problem, and more so, will be able to augment Mac Applications with iPad OS and iOS Apps, again with almost zero effort from developers.
I don't know if you have seen it, but I doubt that linuxplatform has;
Platform State of the Union at WWDC. The first half is wrt ASi transition from Intel
Not seeing the pessimism on Apple, and for those developers that need more time, Rosetta 2 seems solid. Parallels is noted to have been operational during the keynote on ASi and the expectation is that a Windows emulator will be available, though when is unconfirmed.
For those that find Apple too expensive, qualify for an Apple Card, make monthly payments, which I expect will morph into a subscription bundle covering all hardware and software for an individual in the future.
Did no one here experience the loss of software and drivers due to the last architectural shift? It was hard enough on the 32-bit to 64-bit change (yet more losses, because developers and companies don’t want to maintain existing software and hardware drivers; they want to sell something new, even when customers want to keep using what they already have).
I don’t see how people are so casual about this. This continues to be an issue here and it makes me wonder what people do with their Macs. If it’s general computing, so be it; why don’t you just use iPads? There’s more to it for some of us.
I’m pretty sure running legacy corporate Windows Apps in a Rosetta2 Windows VM at 72% native performance is perfectly viable as any real work is done by macOS natives anyway.
There's no indication this is possible, yet. You'd have to have some way of running Win/x86 on ARM to do that, which doesn't exist. You can't run an existing x86 VM app under Rosetta 2 as stated by Apple already.
The point I’m trying to make is that today’s Apple isn’t yesterday’s Apple, AND: Assuming the same level of expertise in EVERYTHING is a flawed argument, especially when the respect Apple earned in the past has been eroding. iOS is buggy as hell. Mac OS is catching up in terms of bugs. The pathological obsession with compact and thin hardware has repeatedly caused serious hardware performance, longevity, and therefore sales problems for Apple.
You bring these things up repeatedly but it doesn't make them true. I very seldom experience any iOS or macOS bugs that cause any significant issue. Not to say they don't exist, but they always have and always will and there's no massive erosion as you keep implying. You've said yourself you're running High Sierra on your Macs still, so how do you even know?
There's no evidence to support that there are "serious performance, longevity, and therefore sales problems for Apple". Just because you blame the death of one of your Macs on thermal issues and refuse to buy a new one even after years and years of bleating on and on about how they won't make the Mac you want doesn't make it true.
What no one should be arguing is that Apple will, through Apple Silicon, suddenly beat WinTel, Dell, etc in the space where they continue to dominate. There are fanboys making these ridiculous arguments. That’s what LinuxPlatform is getting at.
Yet nobody stated that in this article or the ensuing comments, LinuxPlatform was clearly projecting here.
What we, as Apple customers and Mac users should be concerned about is what desktop marketshare will be lost in this transition of Macs to non-Intel architecture. The move to Intel was a boon for software development and therefore users. This is effectively over. The question is whether development has advanced enough in general to make it less of a barrier to continue maintaining Mac OS ports on the new architecture. Having to purchase and maintain only ONE computer to develop for both Operating Systems is effectively over for future development. Developers frown upon expenses...
FUD. You're making the unsubstantiated assumption that they will lose marketshare.
What you've made abundantly clear is you have no idea how most cross-platform software development happens. That "question" you asked has already been answered by Apple in that for most developers, they'll just check the ASi target box in Xcode and recompile. For others, it'll take a few days of work. For others, I'm sure, there's more work to be done if they're behind the curve with regard to Apple's modern API requirements for macOS, but in that case they're already behind. Until companies start announcing they're not following Apple down this path, I call bullshit.
LOL which important software company out there only has one development machine for both Windows and Mac development? "Developers frown at expenses" — not any serious developers. The ADK is $500, which is nothing for most professionals. You're making shit up to support your dismal, pessimistic worldview, as usual.
Did no one here experience the loss of software and drivers due to the last architectural shift? It was hard enough on the 32-bit to 64-bit change (yet more losses, because developers and companies don’t want to maintain existing software and hardware drivers; they want to sell something new, even when customers want to keep using what they already have).
I don’t see how people are so casual about this. This continues to be an issue here and it makes me wonder what people do with their Macs. If it’s general computing, so be it; why don’t you just use iPads? There’s more to it for some of us.
You're seriously still complaining about the switch 15 years ago? We know you haven't had to deal with the 32bit to 64bit change because you're still on High Sierra. It's not that big of a deal for most people; those for whom it is will hold back as necessary to get their work done.
What people do with their Macs? Most of us use our Macs for work and have no problem moving forward with the industry. It's hilarious that someone who clearly does not use their Mac for any serious work, is implying that everyone else could just be using an iPad instead. You're a hobbyist, despite your need for "hot and heavy workflows" as you describe them you clearly don't get paid for that kind of work. I use my Mac for video and animation and 3D and web development. I see nothing to worry about moving forward, and like most people here, are enthusiastic about the switch to Apple Silicon are not fretting over imaginary roadblocks to getting our work done. Just because you're stuck in the past doesn't mean everyone else should be.
“We’ve learned and struggled for a few years here figuring out how to make a decent phone,” he said. “PC [Apple] guys are not going to just figure this out. They’re not going to just walk in.” - Palm CEO
Comments
and the Apple Watch
and the Services division.
But given your posting history, if you hadn't agreed with him then I'd be worried that I was wrong …
LinuxPlatform once said that Apple would never make their own chips because developers would have to rewrite all their apps from scratch. The problem isn't that his commentary 'might not be exactly on target'; the problem is that he's basing his commentary on notions that are easily proven to be wrong.
Case in point: he believes that Apple is going to put a mobile chip into a desktop machine, when Apple has said a number of time that it will be building a completely different line of chips for the desktops/laptops.
That's why is ass is in pieces: his technical knowledge of Apple's strategy is about the same level as yours.
Not about GUI design they don’t. Not any more. Well, maybe you’re as uninformed as current Apple “experts”...
The point I’m trying to make is that today’s Apple isn’t yesterday’s Apple, AND: Assuming the same level of expertise in EVERYTHING is a flawed argument, especially when the respect Apple earned in the past has been eroding. iOS is buggy as hell. Mac OS is catching up in terms of bugs. The pathological obsession with compact and thin hardware has repeatedly caused serious hardware performance, longevity, and therefore sales problems for Apple.
These are not good signs.
Ultimately, the real argument from JLG is whether or not this move to ARM-based CPUs will inspire other industry changes.
I hope it does.
The industry is garbage, compared to what it should be by now.
Apple introduced healthy competition with the iPhone in 2007. It had a major impact on the lazy and user-abusive computer industry. It was good change and it changed a lot (not just mobile; the halo effect was notable)... for a little while.
That’s no longer the case. The “good enough” mentality has reasserted itself in the industry, and Apple has since fallen back to lower effort for higher profits, and their delivery of bugs has increased with their unrealistic pathological Wall Street marketing expectations.
If Apple can trigger another progressive paradigm shift, we will all benefit.
What no one should be arguing is that Apple will, through Apple Silicon, suddenly beat WinTel, Dell, etc in the space where they continue to dominate. There are fanboys making these ridiculous arguments. That’s what LinuxPlatform is getting at.
What we, as Apple customers and Mac users should be concerned about is what desktop marketshare will be lost in this transition of Macs to non-Intel architecture. The move to Intel was a boon for software development and therefore users. This is effectively over. The question is whether development has advanced enough in general to make it less of a barrier to continue maintaining Mac OS ports on the new architecture. Having to purchase and maintain only ONE computer to develop for both Operating Systems is effectively over for future development. Developers frown upon expenses...
Microsoft hasn’t held on to backwards-compatibility just because they’re stupid (though stupidity and lack of vision is certainly an issue there). Industry and businesses relying on old software is a big market and MS have been happy to collect profits from it. They have failed to differentiate between progressive platforms and old platforms, though, and that’s where they continue to fail. Their effort at running x86 software on their ARM OS is something they ought to feel ashamed of. Instead, it’s barely even an issue because they continue to make money on the WinTel market as they always have.
But we’ve seen how Microsoft does things long term: they will keep throwing money at it until their own version of something gains traction and market share. IF there is money to be made in Windows on ARM, they will make it, eventually. Maybe Apple proving that usable x86 emulation is possible will be a fire lit under their complacent but perpetually plotting asses. Maybe not.
Incidentally, another product that I'm really curious to see evolve with Apple Silicon is the Mac Mini. I salivate at the idea of the rumored 12 core (8 big / 4 little) Mac SOC going into a Mac Mini, especially if entry level price remained at $800 (where currently sits a quad core i3). I could imagine people buying racks of those things.
The fanboy argumentation for Apple beating and wrecking intel is equally unfounded for the same reason: we haven’t seen desktop-designed Apple Silicon.
Even when we do, there’s still the concern of whether the benefit outweighs the risks of developers deciding it’s not worth them continuing to maintain their software and hardware products on the Mac platform (when they make much more money on the Windows platform)... whatever the Windows platform may be in the future.
If Microsoft gets serious about ARM, that might bring back a lot of cross-platform development that may be lost with this Apple transition. It hasn’t happened yet. The concerns are legit. The optimism is legit, but not to the extent some of these guys take it (that this will be wonderful and lead to Apple dominating desktop and server markets just as they did with iOS-based mobile markets).
As for the importance of the PC, its waned over the last decade. People often spend far more time on their smartphones (computer) and tablet (computer) than a laptop or desktop (computer). If anything those devices have become more central to their lives than a traditional PC and the sales trends prove it. My Dad like a lot of people I know has a computer going on ten years, but during that time he's upgraded his iPhone 3x times and his iPad twice, and same is true of my middle aged daughter who is a IT professional, as well as younger members of my extended family who do all sorts of things. While I don't surf the web for NASCAR results, it's easy to forget that computing devices are not just work devices and mobile devices are primarily communication devices.
While iPhone and iPad software is more limited moving the Mac to ARM will already place it within a healthy eco system. While that may not open the Mac to the same diversity of software on the PC it will open the Mac to a massive number of developers, which already includes Microsoft and Adobe. It's also hard to see Apple really losing any of its current developers considering how low the bar will be for moving from x86 to ARM.
iPhone sales almost match the total number of PCs sold in a year. If you throw in iPads Apple sells more iPhones and iPads than the total number of PCs sold in a year. How is that not mass market? And if you think this hasn't had a major impact on the PC market, you're wrong. INTEL/AMD just missed the boat on what is the other half of the PC market, arguably the larger half. What's half of the market worth? Easy, just compare INTELs puny market value to Apple's market value. If fact, if you compare INTEL/AMD/MICROSOFT together to Apple in value or profit the magnitude of how much marketshare they've lost becomes pretty clear.
As for Apple beating WINTEL its just a matter of what's being compared. If you ignore the mobile half of the PC market WINTEL looks pretty good, if you don't then the magnitude of there loss becomes pretty clear.
Going forward INTEL is going to be at a huge disadvantage against Apple simply because they only only have a small fraction of Apple's R&D budget, which cannot be narrowly focused on just a few products which have a level of integration which INTEL could only dream of.
Microsoft has something Apple has never had in-house: an optimized managed runtime complete with a rather powerful SDK using it, in the form of .NET, and now .NET Core (open source). In UWP applications, they're then compiled over to .NET Native, but for all (or pretty much all, if there are any that use hand-coded assembly at all) UWP applications, it literally is just a recompile away for UWP applications, and most .NET applications, as .NET applications are CPU-independent already, except for where they use interop to interface with native code in either the OS or externally-created DLLs.
Does Microsoft have any projects where they're working on a much more efficient ARM-based CPU? I don't have insight into that, I'd have to ask around, but if they're behaving themselves, they'd not tell. It's not worth the risk/time to concern myself with that. Microsoft is working on a quantum computing CPU design in their Research arm: I've interviewed in the past for contracts involved with implementing design tools for that. While they've worked with Qualcomm, the facts of the matter are that Qualcomm haven't put out an ARM CPU of great performance: while Microsoft has the tech talent available to do a Rosetta tool, it's not going to get great performance. One part I don't know about (since I've not bought one, I don't care to investigate) is if Microsoft does any translation of native compiled code now. But, where the input code is of the managed languages using the CLR, there's no need to translate: just do the normal thing done with .NET code on any CPU.
I speculate that Microsoft won't do a Rosetta entirely for business reasons: consider that if they did create one, what priority would there be for other companies to spend any effort at all to recompile (with some changes, because Windows on ARM isn't 100% identical) their applications? Right now, Microsoft isn't even a large vendor for x86/x86-64 PCs that can run Windows, and there are plenty of cheap vendors of them. Because Microsoft hasn't gone out of their way to try to do the Apple route for top-performance ARM-based CPUs on their own, they're caught with the rest of the pack for ARM performance as the best they can hope for at this time. Perhaps Microsoft has gone with an ARM version of the desktop version of Windows (remember, Windows Phone was ARM, and the Windows OS is platform-agnostic at the low level once the small Hardware Abstraction Layer has been built for a given CPU) to keep Intel honest and on their toes. As long as all the other PC vendors keep selling Intel machines and not put their toes in the water of ARM, users can always go the cheaper-for-speed route of Intel. Perhaps Apple's silicon will finally light the fire under the various CPU designers to up their game and help push Intel out of that 8000 pound gorilla status.
It's easy to forget how large the iOS install base and eco system is. Going forward the opportunity to deploy on the Mac, iPad and iPhone will be even easier and there is certainly a lot of opportunity there especially for game and creativity app developers. Fortnight runs at up to 120 fps on an iPad Pro so we already know what to expect from the lowest ARM based Mac, which is something my 2020 13" i7 MBP could only dream of.
The iPad Pro can now run Fortnite at 120 frames per second
https://www.theverge.com/2020/1/19/21073526/fortnite-ipad-pro-frame-rate-120-fpsMS continues to transition developers and applications to 64 bit and UWP, which is one of the reasons I suspect that Windows 10 developers have such a task ahead of them to transition to ARM; all of that legacy code, some in assembly. Apple doesn't have that problem, and more so, will be able to augment Mac Applications with iPad OS and iOS Apps, again with almost zero effort from developers.
I don't know if you have seen it, but I doubt that linuxplatform has;
Platform State of the Union at WWDC. The first half is wrt ASi transition from Intel
https://developer.apple.com/videos/play/wwdc2020/102/
Not seeing the pessimism on Apple, and for those developers that need more time, Rosetta 2 seems solid. Parallels is noted to have been operational during the keynote on ASi and the expectation is that a Windows emulator will be available, though when is unconfirmed.
For those that find Apple too expensive, qualify for an Apple Card, make monthly payments, which I expect will morph into a subscription bundle covering all hardware and software for an individual in the future.
I don’t see how people are so casual about this. This continues to be an issue here and it makes me wonder what people do with their Macs. If it’s general computing, so be it; why don’t you just use iPads? There’s more to it for some of us.
There's no evidence to support that there are "serious performance, longevity, and therefore sales problems for Apple". Just because you blame the death of one of your Macs on thermal issues and refuse to buy a new one even after years and years of bleating on and on about how they won't make the Mac you want doesn't make it true.
Yet nobody stated that in this article or the ensuing comments, LinuxPlatform was clearly projecting here.
FUD. You're making the unsubstantiated assumption that they will lose marketshare.
What you've made abundantly clear is you have no idea how most cross-platform software development happens. That "question" you asked has already been answered by Apple in that for most developers, they'll just check the ASi target box in Xcode and recompile. For others, it'll take a few days of work. For others, I'm sure, there's more work to be done if they're behind the curve with regard to Apple's modern API requirements for macOS, but in that case they're already behind. Until companies start announcing they're not following Apple down this path, I call bullshit.
LOL which important software company out there only has one development machine for both Windows and Mac development? "Developers frown at expenses" — not any serious developers. The ADK is $500, which is nothing for most professionals. You're making shit up to support your dismal, pessimistic worldview, as usual.
You're seriously still complaining about the switch 15 years ago? We know you haven't had to deal with the 32bit to 64bit change because you're still on High Sierra. It's not that big of a deal for most people; those for whom it is will hold back as necessary to get their work done.
What people do with their Macs? Most of us use our Macs for work and have no problem moving forward with the industry. It's hilarious that someone who clearly does not use their Mac for any serious work, is implying that everyone else could just be using an iPad instead. You're a hobbyist, despite your need for "hot and heavy workflows" as you describe them you clearly don't get paid for that kind of work. I use my Mac for video and animation and 3D and web development. I see nothing to worry about moving forward, and like most people here, are enthusiastic about the switch to Apple Silicon are not fretting over imaginary roadblocks to getting our work done. Just because you're stuck in the past doesn't mean everyone else should be.
“We’ve learned and struggled for a few years here figuring out how to make a decent phone,” he said. “PC [Apple] guys are not going to just figure this out. They’re not going to just walk in.” - Palm CEO