How Apple Silicon Macs can supercharge computing in the 2020s

12346

Comments

  • Reply 101 of 122

    jcc said:
    This article paints a too rosy picture of the transition. The fact of the matter is that moving away from x86 will end Mac’s “best of both worlds” status. That means no more running Windows software.
    In over 20 years and Thousands of both Mac & Windows Users I have serviced, I have yet to meet ONE person who wants or needs to run Windows on a Mac. It's two separate Worlds plain and simple. Anyone who thinks otherwise is FUBAR.
    In over 20 years there have been billions of computers sold, so your anecdotal evidence of the rare Windows and Mac user in one very much an edge case. Major universities when they have Macs have Bootcamp. All Engineering fields if they have Macs have Bootcamp. Apple isn't making a dent like people believe around the globe deployed Mac Hardware for macOS yet, even in 2020. They are hoping to force people into ARM and macOS only to complete their vertical ecosystem. 

    The resources they save on supporting both x86 and ARM is minuscule in terms of labor and capital investment. Apple Silicon will never be the CPU king for its straight CPU to CPU performance metrics. They are banking on the add-on modules to be the heavy lifters. The FPGAs, DSPs, etc.

    With AMD buying Xilinx they got the King of those very markets, globally in-house. AMD's own CPUs will be augmented and not resemble what they look like today moving forward.

    AMD also has a license for ARM like Apple. If AMD wants it can jump to ARM only as well, and their processors have over 40 years of experience including the last ten years of experience with ARM. Xilinx has a ton of experience with ARM, even more than AMD.

    https://www.xilinx.com/products/silicon-devices/soc.html


    Apple will always be successful with whatever ISA it has a license to use. And it is the leader in embedded consumer electronic operating systems. 

    You're kidding yourselves if you think after 23 years since the NeXT Merger that Apple will take over the world on the Laptop/Desktop/Workstation spaces. Apple created Bootcamp to increase sales of Macs not to move people to macOS. The hardware sales were sluggish but having Bootcamp for the professional/business world gives people the quality of Mac hardware and the requirements of their company's Microsoft Windows mandate.

    The fact Microsoft hasn't seen any measurable increase of sales for their own ARM products and Windows is a sign Apple doesn't expect to double or triple their market share with ARM.

    Their bread n' butter continues to be the embedded space with iOS. They could have made this transition full force three years from now and had industry leading tech via AMD for their Mac lines while Silicon quietly matures, but they jumped the shark a bit on this one.
    I only want to address a single claim you’ve made, that Apple’s CPUs will never be a leader in general CPU performance: why do you believe with such certainty that is the truth?

    Apple’s current processors run cool, in phones, while beating a large number of desktop single-core Geekbench scores. Current performance for CPU silicon is no guarantee either way of what they’ll be able to accomplish in the future, especially compared to Intel/AMD with a different ISA. Anyone that knows what can and will happen with the perfect certainty you express should fully invest on such “knowledge” and become rich.
  • Reply 102 of 122
    chiachia Posts: 712member
    avon b7 said:

    Apple definitely does not have any such 'broader or taller technology stack to work with than any other competitor' . That is ludicrous.

    Ludicrous in the extreme.

    I would like you to support that claim.
    Seriously? In that case, which other competitors author their own operating systems for several categories of products they sell in volume, just like Apple does with macOS for desktops, iOS/iPadOS for mobile devices, tvOS for set-top boxes AND watchOS for wearables?
    And how many of those competitors design the very microprocessors that go into their own products?
    edited November 2020 tmay
  • Reply 103 of 122
    dewmedewme Posts: 3,946member
    danvm said:
    tzeshan said:
    Apple will be able to eat Windows OS shares this time. Two things. Apple Silicon Macs are rumored to last up to twenty hours on battery. And Pages, Numbers, and Keynote free applications are mature enough to be able to replace Word, Excel, and PowerPoints applications from Microsoft which are very expensive to own. 
    Altough anything is possible, but I don't see macOS being in +1B devices as WIndows or iOS. What I see less probable, at least in my opinion, is MS Office being replaced with Apple apps, or even other suite of productivity applications. I have seen people moving to Windows to Mac and viceversa, iOS to Android and viceversa.  But most users keep MS Office, doesn't matter in which platform they are. And now at $70 / year or $100 / year for six users, with 1TB per user is not expensive as you said. 
    As long as Apple doesn't go directly at Microsoft Office, okay. But Apple going directly after Microsoft Office would, imho, be a perfect example of blind ambition, not to mention being the antithesis of disruptive innovation. Apple has so many other paths to success that are all paved with excellent profitability with tremendous upside potential. In many cases, markets that Apple jumps into are either devoid of worthy competition, or underserved by technologically inferior products that are grossly lacking in their user experience. Not only would Apple have to develop a significantly better alternative to Microsoft Office, or Microsoft 365 to be more exact, they'd have to unseat a well-entrenched de facto business standard, and recoup their investment via subscription prices that are akin to competing gas stations who try to lure customers away with pennies off per gallon deals. If we've learned nothing else about Apple since its inception, we've learned one thing for sure - Apple isn't too keen about competing on price, whether the competition is one other company or a slew of companies.

    If we're talking price ... the free/donationware LIbreOffice suite is probably better positioned, feature wise, against Microsoft than Apple's apps are positioned. If LibreOffice is only 75% as good as Microsoft Office the fact that it puts a near zero number in the denominator when compared to Microsoft's subscription price, should give it a superior value proposition. I doubt that Satya loses a microsecond of sleep worrying about LibreOffice.   

    In the grand scheme of things I don't see Apple jumping into the fray against Office when they have so many other things to go after. Remember that disruption usually happens from below, ideally where you're competing against nothing or where the big players don't think the market is worth their time, effort, or money. A full frontal, head-on assault against the top dog may fuel some people's egos, but why do it when you don't have to? Apple doesn't need to beat Microsoft in a market where Microsoft sets the standard and establishes the rules. If Apple can create new markets, set its own rules, and maybe even devise some innovative ways solve office productivity problems without following the Microsoft big office suite approach, they'd be poised for disruption. In the meantime, Pages, Numbers, and KeyNote give Apple a way to show that they're not totally ignoring the (home/small) office productivity game until they can make the whole notion of big office suites irrelevant. 

    Competing head-to-head with Microsoft Office today would be a ditch-digging contest. Massive effort with little to show for it except lots of displaced dirt. Apple would be better served to find a way to not have to compete at the dirt slogging level. Applying the Steve Jobs decision making process, I believe directly going after Microsoft Office would just be another one of the many proposals that quickly resolves to a big fat NO. 
    edited November 2020
  • Reply 104 of 122
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 5,959member
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    michelb76 said:
    I'd be surprised of Apple will introduce models that are faster or a lot faster than the top AMD or Intel CPU's, within 2-3 years. It makes no commercial sense to do so, and the software probably won't make the transition that quickly.
    Check Geekbench 5 single core of A14 and then compare that to latest Intel/AMD processors with clock speeds, then consider this is running in iPhones and iPad Air 4 already, passively cooled, with Intel/AMD CPUs actively cooled and running far warmer.

    What will Apple be able to do with enough of those performance cores with active cooling?

    This iPad Air 4 is faster for web browsing than my late 2019 16” MacBook Pro with i9, and not by a small amount. Geekbench single core for A14 is notably higher (multicore, i9 definitely wins).

    I’m really wondering what performance will be of Apple Silicon: they may beat AMD/Intel immediately for performance out of the gate. AMD/Intel are not using as small of process nodes, so it’ll be interesting to see what things are like once all are on the same size process node.
    My newest mac is old so I can't check it for myself but I was intrigued by the web browsing speed you are getting on the iPad 4 against the i9 MBP. 

    Are you browsing complex webs? Is something else perhaps slowing down the web performance of the MBP? Would the same processor in a PC laptop perform as badly? 

    As I said further up, Apple isn't doing anything new with this move. ARM based systems already exist across virtually the entire computing spectrum.

    The move is just a move. At this point perhaps more beneficial to Apple than to users in any real sense. 

    I've long been of the opinion that intel's failings have been a boon for the general computing world. Seeing no massive upgrades has led to older systems easily holding their own against modern systems. It's actually why I feel no need to upgrade my older systems (especially when all architecure transitions are messy at some point). They bring headaches and problems down the line - always (unless you only live for the present).

    The title of this piece is a misnomer. Apple can't supercharge computing when it holds such a small part of the pie and computing is already supercharged. 
    As if computing is only defined by the desktop.

    Apple has a broader, and taller, technology stack to work with compared to any competitor, and Apple has the resources to continue to expand and exploit that advantage.  That Apple will bias towards margins and profitability is a given, but expand their market they will. On top of that, Services for all of those Apple customers continues at a fast growing revenue source.

    Oh, and web browsing is optimized in silicon, firmware, and software, for Apple mobile devices, and it should be expected that will carry over into ASi for Mac's, so an advantage over Intel should be expected.
    Apple definitely does not have any such 'broader or taller technology stack to work with than any other competitor' . That is ludicrous.

    Ludicrous in the extreme.

    I would like you to support that claim. 

    Apple is a consumer electronics hardware company with consumer oriented software and entertainment platforms.

    I think the point I was making about web browsing between two Apple platforms went completely over your head. 
    Pray tell, which other consumer electronics company has the mix, and breadth, of OS, hardware, firmware, software, development platform, ecosystem, and services, to match Apple?

    It certainly isn't Huawei, nor Google, the search/advertising company, and it certainly isn't MS, the Windows/Enterprise/cloud/gaming company with limited hardware offerings.

    Oh, and I stand by my statement that Mac OS web browsing will be faster given ASi over Intel, because Apple already did that in the existing A Series. 

    Feel free to post links that disprove what I have stated.
    Ah! You quietly add 'consumer' to the mix! 

    Not that it will help you. Yes Huawei far outreaches Apple. So does Samsung. 

    Please don't ask me to provide links. 

    Apple isn't even making the modems in its products (a key component of any web browser experience) much less playing a part in the creation of the communications infrastructure (both at a software and hardware level) which forms the backbone of communication itself. It has zero presence in huge swathes of industry where the likes of Huawei/Samsung have a strong presence.

    It's not in the communications industry. 
    It's not in the server industry. 
    It's not in the HPC industry.
    It's not in the energy industry 
    It's not in the AI industry. 
    It's not in the automobile industry. 
    It's not in the aviation industry
    It's not in the health industry. 
    ... 

    Your claim is ludicrous. 

    Huawei alone has over 190,000 employees, more than half of which are engineers. 

    Samsung is probably in a very similar situation. 

  • Reply 105 of 122
    My prediction:

    MacBooks with Apple Silicon will have:

    * 5G option similar to iPads.
    * Charging similar to iPads (you can use the same charger - less power consumption).
  • Reply 106 of 122
    jcc said:
    This article paints a too rosy picture of the transition. The fact of the matter is that moving away from x86 will end Mac’s “best of both worlds” status. That means no more running Windows software.
    While there are always some things in question, Apple's ability to smoothly transition between platform architectures is not one of them.  This is one area where Apple has a stellar track record and they've clearly learned from their past executions.  I have no concerns about Apple's ability to pull this off smoothly.  

    saarek said:
    I’d rather keep the genuine Mac experience in software as opposed to the lazy iOS ports we will now largely be stuck with. 
    There's no reason to assume that's not the case.  However, sometimes there may be a choice of not getting it at all (like right now on Intel Macs) or using the iOS version.   For many simple apps, that will work just fine.

    What this story omits is that, while the Mac line has been a niche product in the industry, it is now a niche product within Apple's spectrum of devices and services.

    Whether the Mac line prospers or flounders will not make a significant difference to corporate Apple.   Either way Apple will continue doing what it has done since the first iPhone 13 years ago.   That won't change.

    But, it is equally true that ARM processors (or their equivalent if NVIDIA gets their way) will steadily push x86 processors out of the market.
    Plus, Apple's strength is increasingly in the integration and simpatico of their products -- which a switch to ARM will only support.
    ....   So, even if the Mac line does take a hit, Apple is doing the right thing for the right reasons.
    How is that different from today? The Mac is already a niche both within the PC market and within Apple today.  At least going forward, the Mac can enjoy both hardware and software synergies from the rest of Apple's platforms. 

    As for the future leading to ARM, yes, I'm sure Apple sees that future as well. They can also hedge their bets knowing that even if Intel sticks around, the vast majority of R&D is being pushed towards making ARM better by the likes of Nvidia, Qualcomm, etc.  This will be true for the server market eventually as well.
    dinoone said:
    ARM recent vulnerabilities (incl. Checkm8, Spectre and Meltdown) surfacing in past Apple silicon efforts, including the currently pervasive T2, are concerning indeed. 
    Hope Apple is finally reacting to such Achilles’ heel in its Apple Silicon strategy. Which, if appropriately handled, could turn into a strategic advantage on competing mainstream silicon.
    As if Spectre Meltdown, etc. don't exist on Intel chips??  Not to mention new vulnerabilities for Intel chips being uncovered on a regular basis such as the most recent SGAxe. Of course, there is also the flaw found in Intel's Converged Security and Management Engine (CSME) that is unfixable, etc.  Seriously, this happens with all chips. Stop the fear mongering.  
    edited November 2020 XeddewmeGG1Rayz2016
  • Reply 107 of 122
    Xed said:
    alxsbr said:
    k2kw said:
    blastdoor said:
    The title is about the future, the content about the past.

    Here’s a thought about the future — I wonder if “desktop AI/ML” will define the Mac of the 2020s the way desktop publishing did in the 80s. 

    Combine user friendly tools for training models with your data with uniquely powerful hardware. Train on Mac, deploy on iPhone 
    Yeah, I read through all that to only get 5nm.   But one thing is guaranteed-this is about PROFITS.   I'm sure Desktop ARM chips will be cheaper to make and will have greater profit margin.    I'm hoping Apple tries to increase its volume but won't hold my breath on this.   With the move to an arm based architecture I am expecting macOS to become more iPhone/ipad like as they share a common software base.  SuperOS for the future.

    DED is usually very good a reiterating the history of Apple's rise to dominance, but doesn't have the same track record with prognostication about the future.
    I think this is mainly about CONTROL over as many aspects of the platforms as possible. 
    That control gives Apple more freedom of choice of how and when to implement new features to help differentiate from competitors. 
    Profits will come, but just as a consequence of that control. 
    I agree with you, but I think too many people will read your line about control and not see how this is likely a good thing for Mac users in the "freedom" you mention in the next line.

    It seems like annual releases work well for Apple so I expect that they'll move to this with the Mac with solid YoY updates on the silicon, like with other devices. Intel really has been a letdown, and the flip side of that with two Mac updates in a calendar year because Intel updated their chips, I never cared for.

    For me, this is the most exciting of the three events this Fall. I think it's likely I'll be getting the first generation.
    I agree, this is another huge change for the Mac.
    Historically, one challenging issue Apple faced is its chips suppliers. Motorola, the PowerPC Alliance, Intel, all of them failed to provide consistent support the way Apple wanted and needed. The key terms here are high performance and high power efficiency. 
    So, let’s see what Apple can do by itself on the PC arena. 
  • Reply 108 of 122
    danvmdanvm Posts: 1,179member
    dewme said:
    danvm said:
    tzeshan said:
    Apple will be able to eat Windows OS shares this time. Two things. Apple Silicon Macs are rumored to last up to twenty hours on battery. And Pages, Numbers, and Keynote free applications are mature enough to be able to replace Word, Excel, and PowerPoints applications from Microsoft which are very expensive to own. 
    Altough anything is possible, but I don't see macOS being in +1B devices as WIndows or iOS. What I see less probable, at least in my opinion, is MS Office being replaced with Apple apps, or even other suite of productivity applications. I have seen people moving to Windows to Mac and viceversa, iOS to Android and viceversa.  But most users keep MS Office, doesn't matter in which platform they are. And now at $70 / year or $100 / year for six users, with 1TB per user is not expensive as you said. 
    In the grand scheme of things I don't see Apple jumping into the fray against Office when they have so many other things to go after. Remember that disruption usually happens from below, ideally where you're competing against nothing or where the big players don't think the market is worth their time, effort, or money. A full frontal, head-on assault against the top dog may fuel some people's egos, but why do it when you don't have to? Apple doesn't need to beat Microsoft in a market where Microsoft sets the standard and establishes the rules. If Apple can create new markets, set its own rules, and maybe even devise some innovative ways solve office productivity problems without following the Microsoft big office suite approach, they'd be poised for disruption. In the meantime, Pages, Numbers, and KeyNote give Apple a way to show that they're not totally ignoring the (home/small) office productivity game until they can make the whole notion of big office suites irrelevant. 

    You had many valid points in your comment.  But I think what you said of big office suites being irrelevant is already valid today, at least as stand alone applications.  What takes MS Office to the another level is the services in MS 365, specially for business / enterprises.  Even if Apple improve their suite of office apps, they will be miles behind, considering they don't have a cloud infrastructure or a service, even similar, to MS 365.  The thing is that MS was smart enough to make MS Office an important part of their cloud service.  Anything can happen, and Apple could make something that changes the market.  But as today, I don't think will see something soon, considering how weak are their suite of apps compared to MS Office and having no presence in the business / enterprise cloud market, and I may even extend to home / personal use.  
  • Reply 109 of 122
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 5,678member
    Apple is clearly targeting some of the 1B iPhone owners who have windows machines, with iOS apps running natively. They don’t need too many of them to move the needle on Mac sales. I mean 10% would be huge but I’m not expecting that much. 

    For now of course the apps will look crap - if it takes off though either catalyst or SwiftUI based apps might replace the iOS UI with something native. 

    Games might be a selling point. But mobile games are notoriously crap. 
    edited November 2020 tmay
  • Reply 110 of 122
    dewmedewme Posts: 3,946member
    danvm said:
    dewme said:
    danvm said:
    tzeshan said:
    Apple will be able to eat Windows OS shares this time. Two things. Apple Silicon Macs are rumored to last up to twenty hours on battery. And Pages, Numbers, and Keynote free applications are mature enough to be able to replace Word, Excel, and PowerPoints applications from Microsoft which are very expensive to own. 
    Altough anything is possible, but I don't see macOS being in +1B devices as WIndows or iOS. What I see less probable, at least in my opinion, is MS Office being replaced with Apple apps, or even other suite of productivity applications. I have seen people moving to Windows to Mac and viceversa, iOS to Android and viceversa.  But most users keep MS Office, doesn't matter in which platform they are. And now at $70 / year or $100 / year for six users, with 1TB per user is not expensive as you said. 
    In the grand scheme of things I don't see Apple jumping into the fray against Office when they have so many other things to go after. Remember that disruption usually happens from below, ideally where you're competing against nothing or where the big players don't think the market is worth their time, effort, or money. A full frontal, head-on assault against the top dog may fuel some people's egos, but why do it when you don't have to? Apple doesn't need to beat Microsoft in a market where Microsoft sets the standard and establishes the rules. If Apple can create new markets, set its own rules, and maybe even devise some innovative ways solve office productivity problems without following the Microsoft big office suite approach, they'd be poised for disruption. In the meantime, Pages, Numbers, and KeyNote give Apple a way to show that they're not totally ignoring the (home/small) office productivity game until they can make the whole notion of big office suites irrelevant. 

    You had many valid points in your comment.  But I think what you said of big office suites being irrelevant is already valid today, at least as stand alone applications.  What takes MS Office to the another level is the services in MS 365, specially for business / enterprises.  Even if Apple improve their suite of office apps, they will be miles behind, considering they don't have a cloud infrastructure or a service, even similar, to MS 365.  The thing is that MS was smart enough to make MS Office an important part of their cloud service.  Anything can happen, and Apple could make something that changes the market.  But as today, I don't think will see something soon, considering how weak are their suite of apps compared to MS Office and having no presence in the business / enterprise cloud market, and I may even extend to home / personal use.  
    Yes, good point. Microsoft Office 365 as perceived by home users as having a loose equivalence to Apple’s Notes/Numbers/Keynote bundle is a fraction of Microsoft’s enterprise level “office productivity” offerings. When you bring in Exchange, Sharepoint, Outlook, Skype for Business, Project Server, Azure, etc., it’s no longer a meaningful comparison. It’s kind of like comparing iCloud to Amazon Web Services. 

    All of this is a bit of a distraction from the Apple Silicon topic. My point was to opine that I don’t see anything that Apple is doing with Apple Silicon that would fundamentally change their approach to penetrate into established markets that weren’t already attractive to Apple prior to having Apple Silicon in their arsenal. 

    I believe Apple’s primary motivation for Apple Silicon is to give them more control over the total hardware stack and allow them to leverage functionality in an a la carte fashion that exists at the silicon level. This allows reuse if IP across many more products, including products that are still on the drawing board and products that have form factors that aren’t well served by commercial off the shelf components. 

    When I look at the functional architecture diagram that Apple has been showing, I don’t assume that every incarnation of an Apple Silicon SoC will have the same collection of functional subsystems. Apple can be very granular in its targeting of functionality to products, something that was never possible with Intel unless Apple built a sidekick or companion SoC that sat alongside the Intel parts. This in my opinion is a potentially huge benefit of Apple Silicon. 



    edited November 2020 tmaychia
  • Reply 111 of 122
    Here is apple’s  challenge: how to persuade the installed base of millions upon  millions of pc users on windows who are locked  into ms office and its azure cloud + the 1000s of other x86 based applications, think of the many financial trading platforms all written for windows. It just isn’t going to happen. Ms excel  has millions of user who rely on visual basic code built in . Apple has no way of converting them over. Numbers is simply not capable of the supporting the functions they rely on. 
  • Reply 112 of 122
    XedXed Posts: 1,109member
    Here is apple’s  challenge: how to persuade the installed base of millions upon  millions of pc users on windows who are locked  into ms office and its azure cloud + the 1000s of other x86 based applications, think of the many financial trading platforms all written for windows. It just isn’t going to happen. Ms excel  has millions of user who rely on visual basic code built in . Apple has no way of converting them over. Numbers is simply not capable of the supporting the functions they rely on. 
    This miss a lot of aspects.

    This misses the fact that S Office and Azure is available to all Mac users. If you really want them you can (and have been able to) use them. If you like Excel then you can use Excel.

    This misses all the iOS and iPadOS apps that will run on macOS with ASi. This will lead to even more switchers than when Apple switched from PPC to Intel because customers don't have to do any of the rigamarole with installing a VM app or Bootcamp, purchasing a new license of Windows, and then downloading and installing it. The apps more than a billion iPhone and iPad customers already have will work on their ASi Macs. This is huge!
    chia
  • Reply 113 of 122
    Apple piggy backed  on the x86 chipset which enabled them with some clever design to keep up with the pc. Clearly they want to not be dependent on x86 and free themselves from it. To think they can make any serious inroads in to pc dominance is ludicrous. In fact they know this. This change will enable apple to set its own roadmap in the hardware future but it wont  enable them to sell many more macs. Thinking it can, is fantasy. The software x86 app installed base is too sticky. 
    jdb8167
  • Reply 114 of 122
    XedXed Posts: 1,109member
    Apple piggy backed  on the x86 chipset which enabled them with some clever design to keep up with the pc. Clearly they want to not be dependent on x86 and free themselves from it. To think they can make any serious inroads in to pc dominance is ludicrous. In fact they know this. This change will enable apple to set its own roadmap in the hardware future but it wont  enable them to sell many more macs. Thinking it can, is fantasy. The software x86 app installed base is too sticky. 
    They already dominate the personal computer. You are on this website because Apple is dominates the media without even having to pay for it. Their actions dictate market trends. No one sells in the volume Apple does for a single model of iPhone, which is the most personal computer on the market.

    Of course, you're not referring to computers belonging to a particular person—the definition of personal—you're instead using an antiquated definition form the 1970s before Apple revolution the market and before mobile phones were revolutionary devices that exceed what people had and did with Windows computers at home, but that's your issue (and frankly a lot of people's problem) for not being to understand how and when paradigm shifts have happened. Apple has stated this many times, but it should be self evident when you look at capability, and that's without needing to see how Apple's devices have severely reduced the WinPC market because their iPhones and iPads have been more than capable of handing a user's personal computing needs.
    edited November 2020 tmayjdb8167
  • Reply 115 of 122
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 5,959member
    chia said:
    avon b7 said:

    Apple definitely does not have any such 'broader or taller technology stack to work with than any other competitor' . That is ludicrous.

    Ludicrous in the extreme.

    I would like you to support that claim.
    Seriously? In that case, which other competitors author their own operating systems for several categories of products they sell in volume, just like Apple does with macOS for desktops, iOS/iPadOS for mobile devices, tvOS for set-top boxes AND watchOS for wearables?
    And how many of those competitors design the very microprocessors that go into their own products?
    Your claim and the claim I was replying to are not the same. 

    He said Apple had a broader and taller technology stack than any other competitor. That is clearly false and I gave him some pointers to make that clear. I didn't go into depth because this thread isn't about those points. 

    In fact my original post here was to correct inaccuracies in the original piece. I don't have the time to go through everything but I have supported what I said with the pertinent links and information. Whoever is reading this can then make their own decisions or ask for more detail but when people start ranting about lies, politics and what not while ignoring the facts I put on the table, their case collapses. 

    As for your claim, don't forget that those OSes you mention are all basically the same OS with variants for each category. Also they operate in just one realm (CE). Volume has nothing to do with the technology stack. Nor does profit or politics. 

    I mentioned Huawei simply because I know them as well as Apple and part of their business overlaps with Apple's but there are companies like Siemens that also have a huge technology stacks. Also far greater than Apple's.

    It's important not to lose sight of what Apple does: consumer electronics + services. 

    Apple doesn't have the DNA or the will to move out of its comfort zone and frankly why should it if it works for them?

    But let's not go crazy and claim Apple is what it isn't. The TouchBar didn't change the world. Nor did a retina display. Nor did FaceID. Nor did the butterfly keyboard. 

    The Internet changed the world. WiFi changed the world. As will 5G. These are technologies that are device independent. 

    That is not a criticism of products that don't change the world but a reality check on Apple's part in it. And everybody else in the CE world. 

    Apple is not into committing to long term projects. It produces and moves on. That is never going to work anywhere outside the CE realm but that isn't a problem in itself. 

    Critical infrastructure, heavy industry etc all require massive commitment to product support over many, many years. Longer than the support Apple offers for its products. And Apple's support comes at a price: the idea that you have to be on the latest OS for support to work well. That's another debate worth looking at for a rainy day. 

    Just because this is an Apple centric site doesn't mean we should lose sight of the non-Apple world or misrepresent Apple's place in it. 

    Many of us are Apple users. I have never had a Windows machine as a work computer and I still remember System 6 but I try to be objective and look beyond Apple and take in what competitors are doing. I can appreciate that. 
    edited November 2020
  • Reply 116 of 122
    tmaytmay Posts: 5,498member
    avon b7 said:
    chia said:
    avon b7 said:

    Apple definitely does not have any such 'broader or taller technology stack to work with than any other competitor' . That is ludicrous.

    Ludicrous in the extreme.

    I would like you to support that claim.
    Seriously? In that case, which other competitors author their own operating systems for several categories of products they sell in volume, just like Apple does with macOS for desktops, iOS/iPadOS for mobile devices, tvOS for set-top boxes AND watchOS for wearables?
    And how many of those competitors design the very microprocessors that go into their own products?
    Your claim and the claim I was replying to are not the same. 

    He said Apple had a broader and taller technology stack than any other competitor. That is clearly false and I gave him some pointers to make that clear. I didn't go into depth because this thread isn't about those points. 

    In fact my original post here was to correct inaccuracies in the original piece. I don't have the time to go through everything but I have supported what I said with the pertinent links and information. Whoever is reading this can then make their own decisions or ask for more detail but when people start ranting about lies, politics and what not while ignoring the facts I put on the table, their case collapses. 

    As for your claim, don't forget that those OSes you mention are all basically the same OS with variants for each category. Also they operate in just one realm (CE). Volume has nothing to do with the technology stack. Nor does profit or politics. 

    I mentioned Huawei simply because I know them as well as Apple and part of their business overlaps with Apple's but there are companies like Siemens that also have a huge technology stacks. Also far greater than Apple's.

    It's important not to lose sight of what Apple does: consumer electronics + services. 

    Apple doesn't have the DNA or the will to move out of its comfort zone and frankly why should it if it works for them?

    But let's not go crazy and claim Apple is what it isn't. The TouchBar didn't change the world. Nor did a retina display. Nor did FaceID. Nor did the butterfly keyboard. 

    The Internet changed the world. WiFi changed the world. As will 5G. These are technologies that are device independent. 

    That is not a criticism of products that don't change the world but a reality check on Apple's part in it. And everybody else in the CE world. 

    Apple is not into committing to long term projects. It produces and moves on. That is never going to work anywhere outside the CE realm but that isn't a problem in itself. 

    Critical infrastructure, heavy industry etc all require massive commitment to product support over many, many years. Longer than the support Apple offers for its products. And Apple's support comes at a price: the idea that you have to be on the latest OS for support to work well. That's another debate worth looking at for a rainy day. 

    Just because this is an Apple centric site doesn't mean we should lose sight of the non-Apple world or misrepresent Apple's place in it. 

    Many of us are Apple users. I have never had a Windows machine as a work computer and I still remember System 6 but I try to be objective and look beyond Apple and take in what competitors are doing. I can appreciate that. 
    LOL.

    Today, yet again, Apple shows that it does indeed have that stack.

    Steven Sinofsky:

    "This is the biggest announcement in “computers” in a long time. It represents a step function/generational change. Early on people will focus on the “transition” which is fine, but the real impact is the direction this takes things. So many initiatives coming together."

    You really have no understanding of Apple, but here you are again, sitting in your Huawei Kiosk at Appleinsider, spewing misinformation, all so you can "feel good" about Huawei.
    jdb8167
  • Reply 117 of 122
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 5,959member
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    chia said:
    avon b7 said:

    Apple definitely does not have any such 'broader or taller technology stack to work with than any other competitor' . That is ludicrous.

    Ludicrous in the extreme.

    I would like you to support that claim.
    Seriously? In that case, which other competitors author their own operating systems for several categories of products they sell in volume, just like Apple does with macOS for desktops, iOS/iPadOS for mobile devices, tvOS for set-top boxes AND watchOS for wearables?
    And how many of those competitors design the very microprocessors that go into their own products?
    Your claim and the claim I was replying to are not the same. 

    He said Apple had a broader and taller technology stack than any other competitor. That is clearly false and I gave him some pointers to make that clear. I didn't go into depth because this thread isn't about those points. 

    In fact my original post here was to correct inaccuracies in the original piece. I don't have the time to go through everything but I have supported what I said with the pertinent links and information. Whoever is reading this can then make their own decisions or ask for more detail but when people start ranting about lies, politics and what not while ignoring the facts I put on the table, their case collapses. 

    As for your claim, don't forget that those OSes you mention are all basically the same OS with variants for each category. Also they operate in just one realm (CE). Volume has nothing to do with the technology stack. Nor does profit or politics. 

    I mentioned Huawei simply because I know them as well as Apple and part of their business overlaps with Apple's but there are companies like Siemens that also have a huge technology stacks. Also far greater than Apple's.

    It's important not to lose sight of what Apple does: consumer electronics + services. 

    Apple doesn't have the DNA or the will to move out of its comfort zone and frankly why should it if it works for them?

    But let's not go crazy and claim Apple is what it isn't. The TouchBar didn't change the world. Nor did a retina display. Nor did FaceID. Nor did the butterfly keyboard. 

    The Internet changed the world. WiFi changed the world. As will 5G. These are technologies that are device independent. 

    That is not a criticism of products that don't change the world but a reality check on Apple's part in it. And everybody else in the CE world. 

    Apple is not into committing to long term projects. It produces and moves on. That is never going to work anywhere outside the CE realm but that isn't a problem in itself. 

    Critical infrastructure, heavy industry etc all require massive commitment to product support over many, many years. Longer than the support Apple offers for its products. And Apple's support comes at a price: the idea that you have to be on the latest OS for support to work well. That's another debate worth looking at for a rainy day. 

    Just because this is an Apple centric site doesn't mean we should lose sight of the non-Apple world or misrepresent Apple's place in it. 

    Many of us are Apple users. I have never had a Windows machine as a work computer and I still remember System 6 but I try to be objective and look beyond Apple and take in what competitors are doing. I can appreciate that. 
    LOL.

    Today, yet again, Apple shows that it does indeed have that stack.

    Steven Sinofsky:

    "This is the biggest announcement in “computers” in a long time. It represents a step function/generational change. Early on people will focus on the “transition” which is fine, but the real impact is the direction this takes things. So many initiatives coming together."

    You really have no understanding of Apple, but here you are again, sitting in your Huawei Kiosk at Appleinsider, spewing misinformation, all so you can "feel good" about Huawei.

    "Today, yet again, Apple shows that it does indeed have that stack" 

    Today? We aren't talking about just today. It does not. Not in the sense of your wild claims, anyway. 

    You are talking about an architectural change in computers. General purpose computers. Swapping out one architecture for another.

    We'll see what comes of it and good luck to Apple but this is a architectural change. There will still be iMacs, Minis and MBPs. 

    I have no 'Huawei Kiosk' but you need to open your perspective. Huawei has been using ARM ISA on its 'computer' chips for years. It also uses intel and AMD depending on market needs. It doesn't need to announce something today or tomorrow. It's here already

    Its Ascend line is designed to scale from earbuds to HPC platforms. 

    https://www.hotchips.org/hc31/HC31_1.11_Huawei.Davinci.HengLiao_v4.0.pdf

    Where is the Apple equivalent? 

    Where is the equivalent to MindSpore and DaVinci.?

    Its HiCar Balong 5000 module is already shipping in cars. 

    https://medium.com/@simturax/huawei-released-first-world-hicar-system-based-vehicle-fe0a622e8b42

    Where is the Apple equivalent? 

    Solar Energy 

    https://solar.huawei.com/eu

    Where is the Apple equivalent? 

    Aviation 

    Well, take a look for yourself... 



    Can you see a pattern developing here? 


    Apple remains a CE and services company. Great. Don't try to claim it has bigger, wider, taller stack than it actually does, though. 

    All that might change someday and I know you like to fast forward to 'next year' this or that, but the reality is that Apple is not what you are claiming it is. Not by a long shot. 

    Now, shall we get back to the main event? 









    edited November 2020
  • Reply 118 of 122
    tmaytmay Posts: 5,498member
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    chia said:
    avon b7 said:

    Apple definitely does not have any such 'broader or taller technology stack to work with than any other competitor' . That is ludicrous.

    Ludicrous in the extreme.

    I would like you to support that claim.
    Seriously? In that case, which other competitors author their own operating systems for several categories of products they sell in volume, just like Apple does with macOS for desktops, iOS/iPadOS for mobile devices, tvOS for set-top boxes AND watchOS for wearables?
    And how many of those competitors design the very microprocessors that go into their own products?
    Your claim and the claim I was replying to are not the same. 

    He said Apple had a broader and taller technology stack than any other competitor. That is clearly false and I gave him some pointers to make that clear. I didn't go into depth because this thread isn't about those points. 

    In fact my original post here was to correct inaccuracies in the original piece. I don't have the time to go through everything but I have supported what I said with the pertinent links and information. Whoever is reading this can then make their own decisions or ask for more detail but when people start ranting about lies, politics and what not while ignoring the facts I put on the table, their case collapses. 

    As for your claim, don't forget that those OSes you mention are all basically the same OS with variants for each category. Also they operate in just one realm (CE). Volume has nothing to do with the technology stack. Nor does profit or politics. 

    I mentioned Huawei simply because I know them as well as Apple and part of their business overlaps with Apple's but there are companies like Siemens that also have a huge technology stacks. Also far greater than Apple's.

    It's important not to lose sight of what Apple does: consumer electronics + services. 

    Apple doesn't have the DNA or the will to move out of its comfort zone and frankly why should it if it works for them?

    But let's not go crazy and claim Apple is what it isn't. The TouchBar didn't change the world. Nor did a retina display. Nor did FaceID. Nor did the butterfly keyboard. 

    The Internet changed the world. WiFi changed the world. As will 5G. These are technologies that are device independent. 

    That is not a criticism of products that don't change the world but a reality check on Apple's part in it. And everybody else in the CE world. 

    Apple is not into committing to long term projects. It produces and moves on. That is never going to work anywhere outside the CE realm but that isn't a problem in itself. 

    Critical infrastructure, heavy industry etc all require massive commitment to product support over many, many years. Longer than the support Apple offers for its products. And Apple's support comes at a price: the idea that you have to be on the latest OS for support to work well. That's another debate worth looking at for a rainy day. 

    Just because this is an Apple centric site doesn't mean we should lose sight of the non-Apple world or misrepresent Apple's place in it. 

    Many of us are Apple users. I have never had a Windows machine as a work computer and I still remember System 6 but I try to be objective and look beyond Apple and take in what competitors are doing. I can appreciate that. 
    LOL.

    Today, yet again, Apple shows that it does indeed have that stack.

    Steven Sinofsky:

    "This is the biggest announcement in “computers” in a long time. It represents a step function/generational change. Early on people will focus on the “transition” which is fine, but the real impact is the direction this takes things. So many initiatives coming together."

    You really have no understanding of Apple, but here you are again, sitting in your Huawei Kiosk at Appleinsider, spewing misinformation, all so you can "feel good" about Huawei.

    "Today, yet again, Apple shows that it does indeed have that stack" 

    Today? We aren't talking about just today. It does not. Not in the sense of your wild claims, anyway. 

    You are talking about an architectural change in computers. General purpose computers. Swapping out one architecture for another.

    We'll see what comes of it and good luck to Apple but this is a architectural change. There will still be iMacs, Minis and MBPs. 

    I have no 'Huawei Kiosk' but you need to open your perspective. Huawei has been using ARM ISA on its 'computer' chips for years. It also uses intel and AMD depending on market needs. It doesn't need to announce something today or tomorrow. It's here already

    Its Ascend line is designed to scale from earbuds to HPC platforms. 

    https://www.hotchips.org/hc31/HC31_1.11_Huawei.Davinci.HengLiao_v4.0.pdf

    Where is the Apple equivalent? 

    Where is the equivalent to MindSpore and DaVinci.?

    Its HiCar Balong 5000 module is already shipping in cars. 

    https://medium.com/@simturax/huawei-released-first-world-hicar-system-based-vehicle-fe0a622e8b42

    Where is the Apple equivalent? 

    Solar Energy 

    https://solar.huawei.com/eu

    Where is the Apple equivalent? 

    Aviation 

    Well, take a look for yourself... 



    Can you see a pattern developing here? 


    Apple remains a CE and services company. Great. Don't try to claim it has bigger, wider, taller stack than it actually does, though. 

    All that might change someday and I know you like to fast forward to 'next year' this or that, but the reality is that Apple is not what you are claiming it is. Not by a long shot. 

    Now, shall we get back to the main event? 









    LOL,

    Same as you ever were...

    Funny. Apple is the world's largest company by valuation, is hugely profitable, and all of its products would fit on a large table.

    Maybe you need to watch Apple's special event, so you can learn something about Apple...

    I'm not impressed with a company that is so dependent on its connections to the CCP, but you certainly are.

    EDIT:

    Pretty sure that the new macs define owning the whole stack.
    edited November 2020 jdb8167
  • Reply 119 of 122
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 5,959member
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    chia said:
    avon b7 said:

    Apple definitely does not have any such 'broader or taller technology stack to work with than any other competitor' . That is ludicrous.

    Ludicrous in the extreme.

    I would like you to support that claim.
    Seriously? In that case, which other competitors author their own operating systems for several categories of products they sell in volume, just like Apple does with macOS for desktops, iOS/iPadOS for mobile devices, tvOS for set-top boxes AND watchOS for wearables?
    And how many of those competitors design the very microprocessors that go into their own products?
    Your claim and the claim I was replying to are not the same. 

    He said Apple had a broader and taller technology stack than any other competitor. That is clearly false and I gave him some pointers to make that clear. I didn't go into depth because this thread isn't about those points. 

    In fact my original post here was to correct inaccuracies in the original piece. I don't have the time to go through everything but I have supported what I said with the pertinent links and information. Whoever is reading this can then make their own decisions or ask for more detail but when people start ranting about lies, politics and what not while ignoring the facts I put on the table, their case collapses. 

    As for your claim, don't forget that those OSes you mention are all basically the same OS with variants for each category. Also they operate in just one realm (CE). Volume has nothing to do with the technology stack. Nor does profit or politics. 

    I mentioned Huawei simply because I know them as well as Apple and part of their business overlaps with Apple's but there are companies like Siemens that also have a huge technology stacks. Also far greater than Apple's.

    It's important not to lose sight of what Apple does: consumer electronics + services. 

    Apple doesn't have the DNA or the will to move out of its comfort zone and frankly why should it if it works for them?

    But let's not go crazy and claim Apple is what it isn't. The TouchBar didn't change the world. Nor did a retina display. Nor did FaceID. Nor did the butterfly keyboard. 

    The Internet changed the world. WiFi changed the world. As will 5G. These are technologies that are device independent. 

    That is not a criticism of products that don't change the world but a reality check on Apple's part in it. And everybody else in the CE world. 

    Apple is not into committing to long term projects. It produces and moves on. That is never going to work anywhere outside the CE realm but that isn't a problem in itself. 

    Critical infrastructure, heavy industry etc all require massive commitment to product support over many, many years. Longer than the support Apple offers for its products. And Apple's support comes at a price: the idea that you have to be on the latest OS for support to work well. That's another debate worth looking at for a rainy day. 

    Just because this is an Apple centric site doesn't mean we should lose sight of the non-Apple world or misrepresent Apple's place in it. 

    Many of us are Apple users. I have never had a Windows machine as a work computer and I still remember System 6 but I try to be objective and look beyond Apple and take in what competitors are doing. I can appreciate that. 
    LOL.

    Today, yet again, Apple shows that it does indeed have that stack.

    Steven Sinofsky:

    "This is the biggest announcement in “computers” in a long time. It represents a step function/generational change. Early on people will focus on the “transition” which is fine, but the real impact is the direction this takes things. So many initiatives coming together."

    You really have no understanding of Apple, but here you are again, sitting in your Huawei Kiosk at Appleinsider, spewing misinformation, all so you can "feel good" about Huawei.

    "Today, yet again, Apple shows that it does indeed have that stack" 

    Today? We aren't talking about just today. It does not. Not in the sense of your wild claims, anyway. 

    You are talking about an architectural change in computers. General purpose computers. Swapping out one architecture for another.

    We'll see what comes of it and good luck to Apple but this is a architectural change. There will still be iMacs, Minis and MBPs. 

    I have no 'Huawei Kiosk' but you need to open your perspective. Huawei has been using ARM ISA on its 'computer' chips for years. It also uses intel and AMD depending on market needs. It doesn't need to announce something today or tomorrow. It's here already

    Its Ascend line is designed to scale from earbuds to HPC platforms. 

    https://www.hotchips.org/hc31/HC31_1.11_Huawei.Davinci.HengLiao_v4.0.pdf

    Where is the Apple equivalent? 

    Where is the equivalent to MindSpore and DaVinci.?

    Its HiCar Balong 5000 module is already shipping in cars. 

    https://medium.com/@simturax/huawei-released-first-world-hicar-system-based-vehicle-fe0a622e8b42

    Where is the Apple equivalent? 

    Solar Energy 

    https://solar.huawei.com/eu

    Where is the Apple equivalent? 

    Aviation 

    Well, take a look for yourself... 



    Can you see a pattern developing here? 


    Apple remains a CE and services company. Great. Don't try to claim it has bigger, wider, taller stack than it actually does, though. 

    All that might change someday and I know you like to fast forward to 'next year' this or that, but the reality is that Apple is not what you are claiming it is. Not by a long shot. 

    Now, shall we get back to the main event? 









    LOL,

    Same as you ever were...

    Funny. Apple is the world's largest company by valuation, is hugely profitable, and all of its products would fit on a large table.

    Maybe you need to watch Apple's special event, so you can learn something about Apple...

    I'm not impressed with a company that is so dependent on its connections to the CCP, but you certainly are.

    EDIT:

    Pretty sure that the new macs define owning the whole stack.
    Re-read what I said earlier. Nothing has changed. 

    You made a ludicrous claim. You insisted and I provided support to what I was saying. You haven't been able to back your claim up because it simply isn't true.

    Now, enjoy the event even though it won't provide you with anything to support your claims. 
  • Reply 120 of 122
    tmaytmay Posts: 5,498member
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    chia said:
    avon b7 said:

    Apple definitely does not have any such 'broader or taller technology stack to work with than any other competitor' . That is ludicrous.

    Ludicrous in the extreme.

    I would like you to support that claim.
    Seriously? In that case, which other competitors author their own operating systems for several categories of products they sell in volume, just like Apple does with macOS for desktops, iOS/iPadOS for mobile devices, tvOS for set-top boxes AND watchOS for wearables?
    And how many of those competitors design the very microprocessors that go into their own products?
    Your claim and the claim I was replying to are not the same. 

    He said Apple had a broader and taller technology stack than any other competitor. That is clearly false and I gave him some pointers to make that clear. I didn't go into depth because this thread isn't about those points. 

    In fact my original post here was to correct inaccuracies in the original piece. I don't have the time to go through everything but I have supported what I said with the pertinent links and information. Whoever is reading this can then make their own decisions or ask for more detail but when people start ranting about lies, politics and what not while ignoring the facts I put on the table, their case collapses. 

    As for your claim, don't forget that those OSes you mention are all basically the same OS with variants for each category. Also they operate in just one realm (CE). Volume has nothing to do with the technology stack. Nor does profit or politics. 

    I mentioned Huawei simply because I know them as well as Apple and part of their business overlaps with Apple's but there are companies like Siemens that also have a huge technology stacks. Also far greater than Apple's.

    It's important not to lose sight of what Apple does: consumer electronics + services. 

    Apple doesn't have the DNA or the will to move out of its comfort zone and frankly why should it if it works for them?

    But let's not go crazy and claim Apple is what it isn't. The TouchBar didn't change the world. Nor did a retina display. Nor did FaceID. Nor did the butterfly keyboard. 

    The Internet changed the world. WiFi changed the world. As will 5G. These are technologies that are device independent. 

    That is not a criticism of products that don't change the world but a reality check on Apple's part in it. And everybody else in the CE world. 

    Apple is not into committing to long term projects. It produces and moves on. That is never going to work anywhere outside the CE realm but that isn't a problem in itself. 

    Critical infrastructure, heavy industry etc all require massive commitment to product support over many, many years. Longer than the support Apple offers for its products. And Apple's support comes at a price: the idea that you have to be on the latest OS for support to work well. That's another debate worth looking at for a rainy day. 

    Just because this is an Apple centric site doesn't mean we should lose sight of the non-Apple world or misrepresent Apple's place in it. 

    Many of us are Apple users. I have never had a Windows machine as a work computer and I still remember System 6 but I try to be objective and look beyond Apple and take in what competitors are doing. I can appreciate that. 
    LOL.

    Today, yet again, Apple shows that it does indeed have that stack.

    Steven Sinofsky:

    "This is the biggest announcement in “computers” in a long time. It represents a step function/generational change. Early on people will focus on the “transition” which is fine, but the real impact is the direction this takes things. So many initiatives coming together."

    You really have no understanding of Apple, but here you are again, sitting in your Huawei Kiosk at Appleinsider, spewing misinformation, all so you can "feel good" about Huawei.

    "Today, yet again, Apple shows that it does indeed have that stack" 

    Today? We aren't talking about just today. It does not. Not in the sense of your wild claims, anyway. 

    You are talking about an architectural change in computers. General purpose computers. Swapping out one architecture for another.

    We'll see what comes of it and good luck to Apple but this is a architectural change. There will still be iMacs, Minis and MBPs. 

    I have no 'Huawei Kiosk' but you need to open your perspective. Huawei has been using ARM ISA on its 'computer' chips for years. It also uses intel and AMD depending on market needs. It doesn't need to announce something today or tomorrow. It's here already

    Its Ascend line is designed to scale from earbuds to HPC platforms. 

    https://www.hotchips.org/hc31/HC31_1.11_Huawei.Davinci.HengLiao_v4.0.pdf

    Where is the Apple equivalent? 

    Where is the equivalent to MindSpore and DaVinci.?

    Its HiCar Balong 5000 module is already shipping in cars. 

    https://medium.com/@simturax/huawei-released-first-world-hicar-system-based-vehicle-fe0a622e8b42

    Where is the Apple equivalent? 

    Solar Energy 

    https://solar.huawei.com/eu

    Where is the Apple equivalent? 

    Aviation 

    Well, take a look for yourself... 



    Can you see a pattern developing here? 


    Apple remains a CE and services company. Great. Don't try to claim it has bigger, wider, taller stack than it actually does, though. 

    All that might change someday and I know you like to fast forward to 'next year' this or that, but the reality is that Apple is not what you are claiming it is. Not by a long shot. 

    Now, shall we get back to the main event? 









    LOL,

    Same as you ever were...

    Funny. Apple is the world's largest company by valuation, is hugely profitable, and all of its products would fit on a large table.

    Maybe you need to watch Apple's special event, so you can learn something about Apple...

    I'm not impressed with a company that is so dependent on its connections to the CCP, but you certainly are.

    EDIT:

    Pretty sure that the new macs define owning the whole stack.
    Re-read what I said earlier. Nothing has changed. 

    You made a ludicrous claim. You insisted and I provided support to what I was saying. You haven't been able to back your claim up because it simply isn't true.

    Now, enjoy the event even though it won't provide you with anything to support your claims. 
    Uhm, whatever. Let the market decide.

    Still, I'm impressed with how many low margin operations Huawei is involved in; lots of commodities.

    Edit:

    I'm not the only one that thinks that Apple has the best stack:

    https://www.anandtech.com/show/16226/apple-silicon-m1-a14-deep-dive

    "Today, Apple has unveiled their brand-new MacBook line-up. This isn’t an ordinary release – if anything, the step that Apple is making today is something that hasn’t happened in 15 years: The start of a CPU architecture transition across their whole consumer Mac line-up.

    Thanks to the company’s vertical integration across hardware and software, this is a monumental change that nobody but Apple can so swiftly usher in. The last time Apple ventured into such an undertaking in 2006, the company had ditched IBM’s PowerPC ISA and processors in favour of Intel x86 designs. Today, Intel is being ditched in favour of the company’s own in-house processors and CPU microarchitectures, built upon the ARM ISA."

    edited November 2020 jdb8167
Sign In or Register to comment.