Microsoft could ask Apple to sell its chip for the Surface. Indeed, Apple could sell its Mx processor line of CPUs to any vendors who make PCs that don't come with macOS but instead come with Windows for ARM or some other OS. Apple could become the new Intel. Apple could charge PC vendors up to $1000 for the CPU that goes into their Windows PCs. If Apple could profit $500 for each non-Apple PC sold, that's a lot of profit for Apple. There are 260 million PCs sold each year. If Apple could sell an Mx CPU to run in every one of those PCs, that would be $130 billion dollars in profit every year. That's more than double Apple's current annual profit.
All you Apple purists will hate this idea, but how can Apple investors be denied a chance to triple their stock value and annual profits?
Upon reflection, my sample numbers are probably too high by 100%, because most CPUs are half that price. Intel's annual profits are half of what I indicated above. So Apple could probably gain only $60 billion per year by replacing Intel.
It’s highly unlikely that Apple will sell a major competitive advantage to competitors. This is why it never licensed MacOS to PC makers.
It goes beyond this. Apple isn't just making their own ARM-based CPU, they're creating an entire SoC that's configured to maximize the running of macOS and applications. Just selling the chip design or the SoC to a PC vendor running Windows or unix/linux would be a waste. There's so much more to the M-series SoC than many people realize. Yes, you can run linux on it and maybe Windows but it's like putting a Tesla motor in a Volkswagen. Yes, it makes it go faster but the car isn't built to handle that power or any of the other features of the entire Tesla ecosystem. It would be the same outcome if Apple sold the M-series SoC to PC vendors.
I'm not so sure.
Apple is swinging towards services with many of its moves.
I wouldn't rule out them selling a 'platform' (like a reference design) that could be leveraged in many ways by third parties.
Selling the platform itself and offering services for it to a far wider audience.
We have entered the 5G and IoT era (although many aren't actually aware of it yet) and Apple doesn't have the resources to cater to the vast amount of devices which will come online over the next few years. And in that group I'm referring to far more than CE. Health, science, education, industry etc. All with services attached to them.
I'm not claiming they will go down that route, but simply giving some hints as to why it could be in their minds.
Microsoft could ask Apple to sell its chip for the Surface. Indeed, Apple could sell its Mx processor line of CPUs to any vendors who make PCs that don't come with macOS but instead come with Windows for ARM or some other OS. Apple could become the new Intel. Apple could charge PC vendors up to $1000 for the CPU that goes into their Windows PCs. If Apple could profit $500 for each non-Apple PC sold, that's a lot of profit for Apple. There are 260 million PCs sold each year. If Apple could sell an Mx CPU to run in every one of those PCs, that would be $130 billion dollars in profit every year. That's more than double Apple's current annual profit.
All you Apple purists will hate this idea, but how can Apple investors be denied a chance to triple their stock value and annual profits?
Upon reflection, my sample numbers are probably too high by 100%, because most CPUs are half that price. Intel's annual profits are half of what I indicated above. So Apple could probably gain only $60 billion per year by replacing Intel.
It’s highly unlikely that Apple will sell a major competitive advantage to competitors. This is why it never licensed MacOS to PC makers.
It goes beyond this. Apple isn't just making their own ARM-based CPU, they're creating an entire SoC that's configured to maximize the running of macOS and applications. Just selling the chip design or the SoC to a PC vendor running Windows or unix/linux would be a waste. There's so much more to the M-series SoC than many people realize. Yes, you can run linux on it and maybe Windows but it's like putting a Tesla motor in a Volkswagen. Yes, it makes it go faster but the car isn't built to handle that power or any of the other features of the entire Tesla ecosystem. It would be the same outcome if Apple sold the M-series SoC to PC vendors.
I'm not so sure.
Apple is swinging towards services with many of its moves.
I wouldn't rule out them selling a 'platform' (like a reference design) that could be leveraged in many ways by third parties.
Selling the platform itself and offering services for it to a far wider audience.
We have entered the 5G and IoT era (although many aren't actually aware of it yet) and Apple doesn't have the resources to cater to the vast amount of devices which will come online over the next few years. And in that group I'm referring to far more than CE. Health, science, education, industry etc. All with services attached to them.
I'm not claiming they will go down that route, but simply giving some hints as to why it could be in their minds.
Apple WOULD have the " resources to cater to the vast amount of devices which will come online over the next few years." if they would stop squandering those resources on stock buybacks and invest in their company instead.
But, I doubt they will be "selling a 'platform' ... that could be leveraged in many ways by third parties"
Apple's strength has always been in integration: first between hardware and software and increasingly between hardware, software and services. (Like, much to your chagrin, ApplePay!)
Late to 5G and scrambling to homebrew a 5G modem. They missed that particular puck altogether.
To buy the Intel Wireless business and then to do what Apple does best in these circumstances... i.e. Take their time to develop something that works is hardly scrambling in my mind. I guess that your homebrew 5G modem is the best in the world?
Now back on topic.
MS has a mountain to climb to get anywhere near the M1 in terms of performance. AFAIK, MS does not have the same sort of ARM license as Apple. Even if they did, it will take them a lot of time to get their new CPU anywhere near the performance/operation that Apple has done with the M1.
We shall all have to sit back and wait and see what MS comes up with by the time they get to V2 of their CPU.
Regardless, it would difficult to argue that Apple did not consider the implications of leaving certain things out. I for one am glad they did as they forced me to reconsider how I interact with a computer.
Cheers.
What is interesting is that they forced you reconsider how to use a computer, that at the end it was very similar to what MS had 5 years ago with the Surface Pro 4. And I don't think that Apple didn't add those features because the reasons you mentioned, considering how Apple criticize touchscreens for being "ergonomically terrible", at least based in their studies.
That’s the point. Had they done everything that Microsoft had done, it wouldn’t have had the impact of the iPad. It would’ve been a tool that was lost (not unlike the force touch that Apple had to finally ditched because very few people could grasp what to do with it and how to include it in their routines. And I was just starting to get the grasp of it and then they took it out. ߤ簟Ｆzwj;♂️)
The impact of the iPad was based in the iPod and the iPhone, and not what MS did or didn't do with the Surface.
Now that people have been sufficiently trained... err have had the experience of working in a touch first environment, it becomes beneficial to bring in or bring back other features. It’s a balancing act that Apple is generally very good at. Not that there aren’t other examples of Apple losing this battle. The file management system is another habit/way of thinking that Apple couldn’t totally kick either.
But now with Scribble, the iPad is something far more versatile than any other computing product and is touch first to boot. One of the best things about mg set up with the iPad Pro is that it is an iPad first and foremost.
Regarding your last statement (in bold), you never show your hand or perceived weaknesses in a battle. Why would you say something is great when you’re selling a device that is purposefully limiting the ways you can interact with it?
**edit - I forgot to bold what I referring too.
Again, people were trained with the iPod and iPhone, so they didn't need to be trained for the iPad. The thing is that the iPad start to have usability issues when people noticed it could be used for more than what Apple allowed with iOS. That's the reason people had an iPad, but had to move to a PC / Mac to complete their tasks. The Surface Pro didn't had that issue. It could be used as a tablet with a touch UI and a pen for notetaking, or use it as a laptop / PC for more complex tasks. At the end, Apple had to copy MS and we see the results with the iPad today. Personally I don't see anything wrong with Apple copying great ideas from MS. Do you?
Late to 5G and scrambling to homebrew a 5G modem. They missed that particular puck altogether.
To buy the Intel Wireless business and then to do what Apple does best in these circumstances... i.e. Take their time to develop something that works is hardly scrambling in my mind. I guess that your homebrew 5G modem is the best in the world?
Now back on topic.
MS has a mountain to climb to get anywhere near the M1 in terms of performance. AFAIK, MS does not have the same sort of ARM license as Apple. Even if they did, it will take them a lot of time to get their new CPU anywhere near the performance/operation that Apple has done with the M1.
We shall all have to sit back and wait and see what MS comes up with by the time they get to V2 of their CPU.
Considering the experience they will have by using their CPU's in Azure, I don't see any issues passing that knowledge and experience to their devices.
LOL. One could not write a more ridiculous 30 year story about Microsoft copying and following Apple. Windows. Luna UI. Zune. Windows phone. Surface. It’s comical!
Microsoft has never been an innovator and they have always been a follower. This is nothing new.
From a practical perspective, what else are they supposed to do? It's clear that Apple Silicon is going to make Intel based PCs look bad. The initial entry level M1 has already shown that and it's clear that this technology can scale well. ARM doesn't really seem to be interested in the desktop market yet. Their X1 core is a step in the right direction but still way behind Apple. Qualcomm doesn't seem to be interested in rolling their own CPU cores anymore and instead just use standard ARM reference designs. Microsoft needs to keep Windows PCs competitive with Apple or they risk eventually losing that market. Their only choice is to take matters into their own hands. They don't have to be as good as Apple, they just need to be more competitive than Intel which is now becoming a rather low bar.
Again, people were trained with the iPod and iPhone, so they didn't need to be trained for the iPad. The thing is that the iPad start to have usability issues when people noticed it could be used for more than what Apple allowed with iOS. That's the reason people had an iPad, but had to move to a PC / Mac to complete their tasks. The Surface Pro didn't had that issue. It could be used as a tablet with a touch UI and a pen for notetaking, or use it as a laptop / PC for more complex tasks. At the end, Apple had to copy MS and we see the results with the iPad today. Personally I don't see anything wrong with Apple copying great ideas from MS. Do you?
I agree that there is nothing wrong with copying great ideas. And I do agree that people were being trained with the iPhone, but I don’t think there had been enough time with the new paradigm yet to have fully bought in. It had only been 3.5 years and the number of people with iPhones was no were near what they are now.. Developers also had not yet fully embraced the transition either and there were always the naysayers that kept saying it’s not powerful enough to be a ‘real’ computer or that it didn’t have ‘full’ programs, only hobbled apps, etc.
If Apple had come out like MS did at that time and supported all of the same things as the surface, the iPad would have become stagnant. Just another touch screen device that under delivers (especially since the apps it would have run not had been forced to think touch first, the pencil would have become niche (used by artists only), keyboard/trackpad and mouse as an input device would’ve been the dominant way to input data). But their stubbornness has paid off as people and developers were forced to think touch first even when they moaned and complained for years for Apple to bring this stuff out.
Do you think that Apple never considered adding these ‘extras’ that Microsoft added with the surface?
Late to 5G and scrambling to homebrew a 5G modem. They missed that particular puck altogether.
To buy the Intel Wireless business and then to do what Apple does best in these circumstances... i.e. Take their time to develop something that works is hardly scrambling in my mind. I guess that your homebrew 5G modem is the best in the world?
Now back on topic.
MS has a mountain to climb to get anywhere near the M1 in terms of performance. AFAIK, MS does not have the same sort of ARM license as Apple. Even if they did, it will take them a lot of time to get their new CPU anywhere near the performance/operation that Apple has done with the M1.
We shall all have to sit back and wait and see what MS comes up with by the time they get to V2 of their CPU.
We will not know any time soon but when intel failed to deliver, Apple put an end to a years long worldwide legal fight and turned around with a 'deal' to use QC 5G tech just as things were due to get started in earnest in the courts. Like I said, we won't know how things went but it looks like this one was brokered in record time (considering what had gone on before)
I think Apple wanted to take the battle to its ultimate consequences but without QC it was going to miss the biggest technological train in over a decade. And miss it big time.
Apple can take the time it wants but behind the scenes it is scrambling. It had little or no option but to run with an X55 and 'bolted on' (which probably impacted other areas) and in no time (weeks) competitors will be launching phones with the X60. Huawei's third generation Balong has been shipping since October.
Apple's 5G homebrew effort will take time but they are very probably dedicating a lot of resources to get a solution to market ASAP. Having access to QC gave it a 'get out of jail' card. IMO, anyway.
According to sources of Bloomberg, Microsoft is working on an in-house processor design, one that could be used in its Surface lineup, but may also end up in servers. Thought to be ARM-based, the chip design unit is said to report to Jason Zander, the head of Microsoft's Azure cloud business.
That's a weird spin in the title to make it sound like Microsoft is following Apple to ARM.
First paragraph in the bloomberg article:
Microsoft Corp. is working on in-house processor designs for use in server computers that run the company’s cloud services, adding to an industrywide effort to reduce reliance on Intel Corp.’s chip technology.
Microsoft is going the ARM route for servers (Azure), similar to their largest competitor Amazon. AWS has already been using Amazon's own second generation ARM Graviton2 processors which, as Amazon claims, offers customers 40% better price performance than x86 based instances. A third generation Graviton3 (likely based on Neoverse V1 or Neoverse N2) is expected in 2021.
Seriously, this isn't all about Apple all the time.
True..but this is Appleinsider all of the time. This is not a general tech forum.. it's an Applecentric website. I don't even disagree with your post.. it's just wasted time for the majority of posts on an Apple website.
Again, people were trained with the iPod and iPhone, so they didn't need to be trained for the iPad. The thing is that the iPad start to have usability issues when people noticed it could be used for more than what Apple allowed with iOS. That's the reason people had an iPad, but had to move to a PC / Mac to complete their tasks. The Surface Pro didn't had that issue. It could be used as a tablet with a touch UI and a pen for notetaking, or use it as a laptop / PC for more complex tasks. At the end, Apple had to copy MS and we see the results with the iPad today. Personally I don't see anything wrong with Apple copying great ideas from MS. Do you?
I agree that there is nothing wrong with copying great ideas. And I do agree that people were being trained with the iPhone, but I don’t think there had been enough time with the new paradigm yet to have fully bought in. It had only been 3.5 years and the number of people with iPhones was no were near what they are now.. Developers also had not yet fully embraced the transition either and there were always the naysayers that kept saying it’s not powerful enough to be a ‘real’ computer or that it didn’t have ‘full’ programs, only hobbled apps, etc.
If Apple had come out like MS did at that time and supported all of the same things as the surface, the iPad would have become stagnant. Just another touch screen device that under delivers (especially since the apps it would have run not had been forced to think touch first, the pencil would have become niche (used by artists only), keyboard/trackpad and mouse as an input device would’ve been the dominant way to input data). But their stubbornness has paid off as people and developers were forced to think touch first even when they moaned and complained for years for Apple to bring this stuff out.
Do you think that Apple never considered adding these ‘extras’ that Microsoft added with the surface?
3.5 years is a lot of time to learn a new paradigm. And you can see the results with impact the iPad and when you consider that it was a larger iPhone. Also developers had no issues moving to iPad, considering it was, again, a large iPhone.
IMO, I Apple had the features the Surface had it would have the same success. People would had use it the same they are using it now. Again, they were already knew the iPhone and the iPod.
And yes, Apple thought of adding what the Surface had. If you had read the article, it shows that Apples had studies that show vertical touchscreens where bad from an ergonomic POV. BTW, remember when toaster / fridges were not a good idea? But now we have an Apple tablet (toaster / fridge}, that when used with a keyboard w trackpad, has a ergonomically terrible vertical touchscreen. Again, this is not users adopting a paradigm. This is Apple being wrong on criticizing features that were useful, and now they copied MS and adopt them. The good thing is that at least they accept they were wrong.
3.5 years is a lot of time to learn a new paradigm. And you can see the results with impact the iPad and when you consider that it was a larger iPhone. Also developers had no issues moving to iPad, considering it was, again, a large iPhone.
IMO, I Apple had the features the Surface had it would have the same success. People would had use it the same they are using it now. Again, they were already knew the iPhone and the iPod.
And yes, Apple thought of adding what the Surface had. If you had read the article, it shows that Apples had studies that show vertical touchscreens where bad from an ergonomic POV. BTW, remember when toaster / fridges were not a good idea? But now we have an Apple tablet (toaster / fridge}, that when used with a keyboard w trackpad, has a ergonomically terrible vertical touchscreen. Again, this is not users adopting a paradigm. This is Apple being wrong on criticizing features that were useful, and now they copied MS and adopt them. The good thing is that at least they accept they were wrong.
I guess we are in disagreement around the time frame and in our experiences of changing our own and seeing others change their behaviour. I also think that you are missing my point of the 3.5 years. If all of Apple’s current users were all using iOS 3.5 years ago, then I would be more inclined to agree with you. But at 3.5 years after the iPhone, iOS users (I’m guessing) were maybe a quarter of what they are today. So with those numbers, it would still be too early to have made a shift in paradigm (IMO).
I get that Apple argued against a keyboard due to ergonomic issues, but it doesn’t change the point I have been working at. And perhaps the magic keyboard addresses those issues (as they have studied them). Have you used the pro with the magic keyboard? I am currently typing on one and I can tell you that I have very little travel to actually touch the screen. I can even touch the bottom of the screen without even moving my fingers beyond what it would be like to touch a number. So, perhaps they did account for that issue in this way? Not sure, but this still doesn’t change the reason for our disagreement, though I may be a little confused as to what you are arguing.... We both agree that Apple had considered the option of including keyboard support, addition of an input device (like a pencil or even a mouse) but chose not to. No issues there. Are you suggesting that the iPad would be even more popular than it is now if they did what the surface had done? And are you also suggesting that the surface is experiencing huge successes with developers developing apps that are based on a touch first mentality rather than simply porting them over? Or that people are seeing the value in how to navigate these multi-input devices? I personally would answer, no, to each of those.
There are plenty, but a good and recent example is HoloLens 2 with Azure Remote Rendering and Dynamics 365. Of course, Apple doesn't compete in the cloud computing or commercial augmented reality market, so I wouldn't be surprised if most of the audience here hasn't the slightest idea these groundbreaking technologies even exist.
In all fairness, I don't think there is really anything Microsoft is doing that is particularly ground breaking here. Most major tech companies are doing a lot of internal research with AR/VR and Hololens is barely more than a tech demo. It's not something everyone is using. Azure is another cloud service like AWS and Google's Cloud Platform. Even iCloud does much of the same, but it's for Apple's customers only.
All you Apple purists will hate this idea, but how can Apple investors be denied a chance to triple their stock value and annual profits?
Apple makes far more profit from selling entire systems that it would possibly make from selling chips. Apple's Silicon is a competitive advantage and they're not going to start selling their Mac based SoCs anymore than they're going to sell their iPhone based SoCs. Apple's Silicon is the envy of the industry and Apple has worked hard to create that advantage for their platforms. They're not going to start selling it. Also, Apple builds exactly what it needs for their own products. If Apple were to start selling it, they'd have to start making concessions for various differ customers of their chips. That wouldn't be good for any of us.
JFC, it's because of that that some of us Apple users are being called pricks on sight. Seriously people, when the M1 was released everyone on that forum started to tell how it would change the industry, how a shift from x86 would happen.
And when that begins to happens, all the people who are still stuck in the early 90's and 00's are out, 30 years later and still bitter about everything that happened, are showing that they have only one thing in mind : "KILL MICROSOFT, WE NEED AN APPLE MONOPOLY".
I don't get it...
You're right, you don't get it. Microsoft putting more effort into using ARM based chips from a company like Qualcomm, etc. is what is expected by the industry. The notion of Microsoft developing their own chips as Apple has is an entirely different expectation and warrants an entirely different response. Having said that, I don't see how anyone sees this as a "bad" thing. You just have to realize that from Apple's original announcement in June until the first M1 based products shipping, many in the industry looked at this move as being "risky" and some even predicting failure, despite Apple's previous successes in both platform transitions and chip development. You see, Apple takes the lumps for being the first mover on such things, then when it's safe, other follow. Yes, technically, Microsoft has been dipping their toes with half hearted attempts to date, but they know they have to do something now. This is sort of like Apple removing the audio port from phones or removing chargers from boxes. First, the industry mocks Apple, then they follow. So, yes, Apple users are getting a chuckle out of this. If that makes you hate Apple users, who cares?
3.5 years is a lot of time to learn a new paradigm. And you can see the results with impact the iPad and when you consider that it was a larger iPhone. Also developers had no issues moving to iPad, considering it was, again, a large iPhone.
IMO, I Apple had the features the Surface had it would have the same success. People would had use it the same they are using it now. Again, they were already knew the iPhone and the iPod.
And yes, Apple thought of adding what the Surface had. If you had read the article, it shows that Apples had studies that show vertical touchscreens where bad from an ergonomic POV. BTW, remember when toaster / fridges were not a good idea? But now we have an Apple tablet (toaster / fridge}, that when used with a keyboard w trackpad, has a ergonomically terrible vertical touchscreen. Again, this is not users adopting a paradigm. This is Apple being wrong on criticizing features that were useful, and now they copied MS and adopt them. The good thing is that at least they accept they were wrong.
I guess we are in disagreement around the time frame and in our experiences of changing our own and seeing others change their behaviour. I also think that you are missing my point of the 3.5 years. If all of Apple’s current users were all using iOS 3.5 years ago, then I would be more inclined to agree with you. But at 3.5 years after the iPhone, iOS users (I’m guessing) were maybe a quarter of what they are today. So with those numbers, it would still be too early to have made a shift in paradigm (IMO).
I get that Apple argued against a keyboard due to ergonomic issues, but it doesn’t change the point I have been working at. And perhaps the magic keyboard addresses those issues (as they have studied them). Have you used the pro with the magic keyboard? I am currently typing on one and I can tell you that I have very little travel to actually touch the screen. I can even touch the bottom of the screen without even moving my fingers beyond what it would be like to touch a number. So, perhaps they did account for that issue in this way? Not sure, but this still doesn’t change the reason for our disagreement, though I may be a little confused as to what you are arguing.... We both agree that Apple had considered the option of including keyboard support, addition of an input device (like a pencil or even a mouse) but chose not to. No issues there. Are you suggesting that the iPad would be even more popular than it is now if they did what the surface had done? And are you also suggesting that the surface is experiencing huge successes with developers developing apps that are based on a touch first mentality rather than simply porting them over? Or that people are seeing the value in how to navigate these multi-input devices? I personally would answer, no, to each of those.
Like I posted before, I don't think users needed to adapt to a new paradigm. What is clear is that at the end Apple created the toaster / fridge device they criticize so much, and became what the Surface Pro was 5 years ago, which was the point of my original comment, how Apple also copies competitors including MS. You think it was because they were changing user behavior, but I think that's not the reason, based in the reasons Apple gave during the years. If the reason was to force users in a new paradigm, does it means that now they are doing the same, and forcing users to another paradigm with keyboard + trackpad and the Pencil?
And to answers your questions, - No, the iPad would had the same popularity as today had they follow MS. What it's clear is that the Surface Pro was a more versatile device 5 years ago, and many iPad users would had benefit from those features. - I don't remember saying that the Surface was / is more popular with developers. - Yes, I think Apple and customers see the value in multi-input devices.
There are plenty, but a good and recent example is HoloLens 2 with Azure Remote Rendering and Dynamics 365. Of course, Apple doesn't compete in the cloud computing or commercial augmented reality market, so I wouldn't be surprised if most of the audience here hasn't the slightest idea these groundbreaking technologies even exist.
In all fairness, I don't think there is really anything Microsoft is doing that is particularly ground breaking here. Most major tech companies are doing a lot of internal research with AR/VR and Hololens is barely more than a tech demo. It's not something everyone is using. Azure is another cloud service like AWS and Google's Cloud Platform. Even iCloud does much of the same, but it's for Apple's customers only.
Also is interesting that Apple acquired PixelSense to create FaceID, the same company that help MS create Kinect, Windows Hello and the technology behind Hololens. So I suppose MS innovation was good enough for Apple to copy it.
I noticed that you compare Azure with AWS, GCP and iCloud, but @KITA was not referring that. Here are some link that will explain, and you'll see there is a lot of innovation involved,
Like I posted before, I don't think users needed to adapt to a new paradigm. What is clear is that at the end Apple created the toaster / fridge device they criticize so much, and became what the Surface Pro was 5 years ago, which was the point of my original comment, how Apple also copies competitors including MS. You think it was because they were changing user behavior, but I think that's not the reason, based in the reasons Apple gave during the years. If the reason was to force users in a new paradigm, does it means that now they are doing the same, and forcing users to another paradigm with keyboard + trackpad and the Pencil?
And to answers your questions, - No, the iPad would had the same popularity as today had they follow MS. What it's clear is that the Surface Pro was a more versatile device 5 years ago, and many iPad users would had benefit from those features. - I don't remember saying that the Surface was / is more popular with developers. - Yes, I think Apple and customers see the value in multi-input devices.
I guess we shall agree to disagree on the Apple’s reasons for making the decisions to leave out particular features only to add them in at a later time. 🙃
You didn’t say that the Surface was more popular with developers, but I was extrapolating my argument to the fact that developers would have most likely continued to make what they knew; and so, if you made a portable device to be a true hybrid of devices from the start, I would guess that, few developers would put in the extra work to change their programs (or re-write them completely) or that users would put in the time (as I have) to rethink how they interact with the device. Continuing this thinking outwards 10 years from when this surface-type iPad first appeared, we would simply have a touch computer that can do what any other computer does. With people interacting with it in near exact was that was done previous with programs that do not focus on touch first.
But like you say, I’m accepting terms of our discussion that you do not think are really important to the conversation. Regardless on where we are at the end of all of this, I’ve enjoyed our conversation thus far. 🤓
Late to 5G and scrambling to homebrew a 5G modem. They missed that particular puck altogether.
To buy the Intel Wireless business and then to do what Apple does best in these circumstances... i.e. Take their time to develop something that works is hardly scrambling in my mind. I guess that your homebrew 5G modem is the best in the world?
Now back on topic.
MS has a mountain to climb to get anywhere near the M1 in terms of performance. AFAIK, MS does not have the same sort of ARM license as Apple. Even if they did, it will take them a lot of time to get their new CPU anywhere near the performance/operation that Apple has done with the M1.
We shall all have to sit back and wait and see what MS comes up with by the time they get to V2 of their CPU.
Considering the experience they will have by using their CPU's in Azure, I don't see any issues passing that knowledge and experience to their devices.
While common sense says you’re right, never underestimate Microsoft’s ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Late to 5G and scrambling to homebrew a 5G modem. They missed that particular puck altogether.
To buy the Intel Wireless business and then to do what Apple does best in these circumstances... i.e. Take their time to develop something that works is hardly scrambling in my mind. I guess that your homebrew 5G modem is the best in the world?
Now back on topic.
MS has a mountain to climb to get anywhere near the M1 in terms of performance. AFAIK, MS does not have the same sort of ARM license as Apple. Even if they did, it will take them a lot of time to get their new CPU anywhere near the performance/operation that Apple has done with the M1.
We shall all have to sit back and wait and see what MS comes up with by the time they get to V2 of their CPU.
Considering the experience they will have by using their CPU's in Azure, I don't see any issues passing that knowledge and experience to their devices.
While common sense says you’re right, never underestimate Microsoft’s ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
I we had this conversation 10-15 years ago, I would had agree with you. But now we are talking about the MS who owns one of the largest and successful cloud infrastructures in the world. I can see them doing the same as Apple, but from a different POV. Apple learned from their mobile devices and MS will learn from their massive datacenters. I think this will very good for their Surface devices, and the PC market as a whole.
Microsoft could ask Apple to sell its chip for the Surface. Indeed, Apple could sell its Mx processor line of CPUs to any vendors who make PCs that don't come with macOS but instead come with Windows for ARM or some other OS. Apple could become the new Intel. Apple could charge PC vendors up to $1000 for the CPU that goes into their Windows PCs. If Apple could profit $500 for each non-Apple PC sold, that's a lot of profit for Apple. There are 260 million PCs sold each year. If Apple could sell an Mx CPU to run in every one of those PCs, that would be $130 billion dollars in profit every year. That's more than double Apple's current annual profit.
All you Apple purists will hate this idea, but how can Apple investors be denied a chance to triple their stock value and annual profits?
Upon reflection, my sample numbers are probably too high by 100%, because most CPUs are half that price. Intel's annual profits are half of what I indicated above. So Apple could probably gain only $60 billion per year by replacing Intel.
Comments
Apple is swinging towards services with many of its moves.
I wouldn't rule out them selling a 'platform' (like a reference design) that could be leveraged in many ways by third parties.
Selling the platform itself and offering services for it to a far wider audience.
We have entered the 5G and IoT era (although many aren't actually aware of it yet) and Apple doesn't have the resources to cater to the vast amount of devices which will come online over the next few years. And in that group I'm referring to far more than CE. Health, science, education, industry etc. All with services attached to them.
I'm not claiming they will go down that route, but simply giving some hints as to why it could be in their minds.
Again, people were trained with the iPod and iPhone, so they didn't need to be trained for the iPad. The thing is that the iPad start to have usability issues when people noticed it could be used for more than what Apple allowed with iOS. That's the reason people had an iPad, but had to move to a PC / Mac to complete their tasks. The Surface Pro didn't had that issue. It could be used as a tablet with a touch UI and a pen for notetaking, or use it as a laptop / PC for more complex tasks. At the end, Apple had to copy MS and we see the results with the iPad today. Personally I don't see anything wrong with Apple copying great ideas from MS. Do you?
From a practical perspective, what else are they supposed to do? It's clear that Apple Silicon is going to make Intel based PCs look bad. The initial entry level M1 has already shown that and it's clear that this technology can scale well. ARM doesn't really seem to be interested in the desktop market yet. Their X1 core is a step in the right direction but still way behind Apple. Qualcomm doesn't seem to be interested in rolling their own CPU cores anymore and instead just use standard ARM reference designs. Microsoft needs to keep Windows PCs competitive with Apple or they risk eventually losing that market. Their only choice is to take matters into their own hands. They don't have to be as good as Apple, they just need to be more competitive than Intel which is now becoming a rather low bar.
I think Apple wanted to take the battle to its ultimate consequences but without QC it was going to miss the biggest technological train in over a decade. And miss it big time.
Apple can take the time it wants but behind the scenes it is scrambling. It had little or no option but to run with an X55 and 'bolted on' (which probably impacted other areas) and in no time (weeks) competitors will be launching phones with the X60. Huawei's third generation Balong has been shipping since October.
Apple's 5G homebrew effort will take time but they are very probably dedicating a lot of resources to get a solution to market ASAP. Having access to QC gave it a 'get out of jail' card. IMO, anyway.
IMO, I Apple had the features the Surface had it would have the same success. People would had use it the same they are using it now. Again, they were already knew the iPhone and the iPod.
And yes, Apple thought of adding what the Surface had. If you had read the article, it shows that Apples had studies that show vertical touchscreens where bad from an ergonomic POV. BTW, remember when toaster / fridges were not a good idea? But now we have an Apple tablet (toaster / fridge}, that when used with a keyboard w trackpad, has a ergonomically terrible vertical touchscreen. Again, this is not users adopting a paradigm. This is Apple being wrong on criticizing features that were useful, and now they copied MS and adopt them. The good thing is that at least they accept they were wrong.
I get that Apple argued against a keyboard due to ergonomic issues, but it doesn’t change the point I have been working at. And perhaps the magic keyboard addresses those issues (as they have studied them). Have you used the pro with the magic keyboard? I am currently typing on one and I can tell you that I have very little travel to actually touch the screen. I can even touch the bottom of the screen without even moving my fingers beyond what it would be like to touch a number. So, perhaps they did account for that issue in this way? Not sure, but this still doesn’t change the reason for our disagreement, though I may be a little confused as to what you are arguing.... We both agree that Apple had considered the option of including keyboard support, addition of an input device (like a pencil or even a mouse) but chose not to. No issues there. Are you suggesting that the iPad would be even more popular than it is now if they did what the surface had done? And are you also suggesting that the surface is experiencing huge successes with developers developing apps that are based on a touch first mentality rather than simply porting them over? Or that people are seeing the value in how to navigate these multi-input devices? I personally would answer, no, to each of those.
Apple makes far more profit from selling entire systems that it would possibly make from selling chips. Apple's Silicon is a competitive advantage and they're not going to start selling their Mac based SoCs anymore than they're going to sell their iPhone based SoCs. Apple's Silicon is the envy of the industry and Apple has worked hard to create that advantage for their platforms. They're not going to start selling it. Also, Apple builds exactly what it needs for their own products. If Apple were to start selling it, they'd have to start making concessions for various differ customers of their chips. That wouldn't be good for any of us.
Damn, beat me to it!
You're right, you don't get it. Microsoft putting more effort into using ARM based chips from a company like Qualcomm, etc. is what is expected by the industry. The notion of Microsoft developing their own chips as Apple has is an entirely different expectation and warrants an entirely different response. Having said that, I don't see how anyone sees this as a "bad" thing. You just have to realize that from Apple's original announcement in June until the first M1 based products shipping, many in the industry looked at this move as being "risky" and some even predicting failure, despite Apple's previous successes in both platform transitions and chip development. You see, Apple takes the lumps for being the first mover on such things, then when it's safe, other follow. Yes, technically, Microsoft has been dipping their toes with half hearted attempts to date, but they know they have to do something now. This is sort of like Apple removing the audio port from phones or removing chargers from boxes. First, the industry mocks Apple, then they follow. So, yes, Apple users are getting a chuckle out of this. If that makes you hate Apple users, who cares?
And to answers your questions,
- No, the iPad would had the same popularity as today had they follow MS. What it's clear is that the Surface Pro was a more versatile device 5 years ago, and many iPad users would had benefit from those features.
- I don't remember saying that the Surface was / is more popular with developers.
- Yes, I think Apple and customers see the value in multi-input devices.
Researchers study benefits of Microsoft's HoloLens 2 headset for spine surgery (beckersspine.com)
Toyota makes mixed reality magic with Unity and Microsoft HoloLens 2 (unity3d.com)
Vroom with a view: HoloLens 2 powers faster fixes for Mercedes-Benz USA | Transform (microsoft.com)
Also is interesting that Apple acquired PixelSense to create FaceID, the same company that help MS create Kinect, Windows Hello and the technology behind Hololens. So I suppose MS innovation was good enough for Apple to copy it.
I noticed that you compare Azure with AWS, GCP and iCloud, but @KITA was not referring that. Here are some link that will explain, and you'll see there is a lot of innovation involved,
Remote Assist | Microsoft Dynamics 365
Azure Remote Rendering | Microsoft Azure
Maybe these technologies are not used by everyone, but I don't think that's a criteria to define if something is innovative or not.
You didn’t say that the Surface was more popular with developers, but I was extrapolating my argument to the fact that developers would have most likely continued to make what they knew; and so, if you made a portable device to be a true hybrid of devices from the start, I would guess that, few developers would put in the extra work to change their programs (or re-write them completely) or that users would put in the time (as I have) to rethink how they interact with the device. Continuing this thinking outwards 10 years from when this surface-type iPad first appeared, we would simply have a touch computer that can do what any other computer does. With people interacting with it in near exact was that was done previous with programs that do not focus on touch first.
I we had this conversation 10-15 years ago, I would had agree with you. But now we are talking about the MS who owns one of the largest and successful cloud infrastructures in the world. I can see them doing the same as Apple, but from a different POV. Apple learned from their mobile devices and MS will learn from their massive datacenters. I think this will very good for their Surface devices, and the PC market as a whole.
Where to begin?