Hmm the title is slightly disingenuous as of course Intel wouldn't be able to mimic the M1 design, nor would such a design yield the similar array of benefits in the x86 world. However I applaud the inclusion of high and low performance cores, since Intel seems to have legitimate issues with die shrink, so this would at least yield some power and heat benefits to the platform.
As for Apple and Intel - Apple's stated "2 year" roadmap to Apple Silicone pretty much precludes anything but providing speed-bumps to existing Intel-macs. Even with advanced notice there is no value for Apple to invest in development there.
We should also keep in mind that rumours for 2021 include Apple Silicone versions of the remaining MacBook Pros and iMacs. Leaving 2022 for just the iMac Pros and the Mac Pro (plus an additional Mac Pro entry level option if the rumours are true.)
Such a fast conversion leaves no room for anything intel may launch today or in the future.
Too little too late. With all their resources, wtf, why are they so fucking far behind the curve?
This is merely the dying last gasp from a cash cow that became so fat from it’s monopolistic position that it couldn’t move out of its own way.
Now go, you serpent, go tongue kiss and embrace Microsoft goodnight and we’ll all enjoy a double pyrotechnic display unparalleled in the tech world since its Big Bang creation those mere decades ago.
The world will suffer neither of your demises.
“ Too little too late”
Don’t agree. 99% of the laptop / desktop is powered by x86. If there is anything Intel has, it’s time. Apple is literally the only company making an ARM SoC that is a threat to Intel & that’s only going to be available for Macs. There’s nothing Qualcomm has right now that comes remotely close to challenging x86.
This comment reminds me when Steve Ballmer said Apple was selling ZERO iPhones a year.
Do you guys not have a slight vision of the future? At all?
Yeh, the M1 is probably better than the x86. But the processor is only a single component of a computer. And, today, it is no longer the limiting factor for the vast majority of users.
It's not a matter of lack of vision.
It's more like a shrug.
The M1 however WILL benefit the Macs in ways that WinTel will never be able to touch: It will enable Macs to integrate into what truly sets Apple hardware apart: Apple's ecosystem of integrated components where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
Too little too late. With all their resources, wtf, why are they so fucking far behind the curve?
Just like the auto manufacturers who sat by and watched Tesla deliver multiple fully electric cars all of which are great. Where is Toyota, GM, Chrysler, Dodge, Nissan, Subaru, and all of the German manufacturers. All have nothing that can even remotely compete. Just like Intel they had a decade to get their act together, but neither took Tesla/ARM processors seriously.
A better automotive based analogy would be... All the US car manufacturers in 70's that refused to make more fuel efficient cars, and watched Japanese and German manufacturers flood the US market and take a huge chunk of it, sending the US auto makers into a catastrophic downward spiral that required the US government to step in and dump billions into.
Fuel efficiency was only one aspect of it -- and a short lived one.
Japanese cars set the standard for affordable quality. American car manufacturers continued to pump out junk -- cars with ill-fitting parts that lasted 4 years. Finally, in the 90's American manufacturers admitted defeat ans switched to making "world class cars". Which, unfortunately were simply the same junk renamed -- which is the same kind of stunt Detroit had been pulling off for decades prior.
Through mismanagement their corporations had been stripped of innovative capacity and saddled with debt -- largely from union pension plans. But they continued to stumble on producing "American Iron" till it all came crashing down in 2008.
Today they do seem to be making better quality cars. But, they are still saddled with a lack of innovative abilities -- particularly in the area that will define the future for automobiles: technology. Going forward, Tesla and others will be aggressively pushing the technological envelope. Cars won't be defined by what's under the hood but, like smart phones, what they can do. Hopefully Detroit can keep up and hang on. But historically their tech has been closed ended and proprietary -- and dead ended. To keep up they will need to redefine their corporations and their cultures. Same ol, Same ol, won't cut it.
....[American Car Companies] are still saddled with a lack of innovative abilities -- particularly in the area that will define the future for automobiles: technology. Going forward, Tesla and others will be aggressively pushing the technological envelope.
This is pretty far off topic so I'll keep this brief. If you do a deeper dive, you'll quickly learn that your claim of a lack of innovative abilities is a pretty ridiculous statement. Tesla is ahead in some areas and behind in others.
....[American Car Companies] are still saddled with a lack of innovative abilities -- particularly in the area that will define the future for automobiles: technology. Going forward, Tesla and others will be aggressively pushing the technological envelope.
This is pretty far off topic so I'll keep this brief. If you do a deeper dive, you'll quickly learn that your claim of a lack of innovative abilities is a pretty ridiculous statement. Tesla is ahead in some areas and behind in others.
U.S. auto makers are very active in technology. Unfortunately that technology is 100 years old. But, for the past 4 years or so, they have been highly successful in talking a good game.
Hmm the title is slightly disingenuous as of course Intel wouldn't be able to mimic the M1 design, nor would such a design yield the similar array of benefits in the x86 world. However I applaud the inclusion of high and low performance cores, since Intel seems to have legitimate issues with die shrink, so this would at least yield some power and heat benefits to the platform.
As for Apple and Intel - Apple's stated "2 year" roadmap to Apple Silicone pretty much precludes anything but providing speed-bumps to existing Intel-macs. Even with advanced notice there is no value for Apple to invest in development there.
We should also keep in mind that rumours for 2021 include Apple Silicone versions of the remaining MacBook Pros and iMacs. Leaving 2022 for just the iMac Pros and the Mac Pro (plus an additional Mac Pro entry level option if the rumours are true.)
Such a fast conversion leaves no room for anything intel may launch today or in the future.
Hmm the title is slightly disingenuous as of course Intel wouldn't be able to mimic the M1 design, nor would such a design yield the similar array of benefits in the x86 world. However I applaud the inclusion of high and low performance cores, since Intel seems to have legitimate issues with die shrink, so this would at least yield some power and heat benefits to the platform.
As for Apple and Intel - Apple's stated "2 year" roadmap to Apple Silicone pretty much precludes anything but providing speed-bumps to existing Intel-macs. Even with advanced notice there is no value for Apple to invest in development there.
We should also keep in mind that rumours for 2021 include Apple Silicone versions of the remaining MacBook Pros and iMacs. Leaving 2022 for just the iMac Pros and the Mac Pro (plus an additional Mac Pro entry level option if the rumours are true.)
Such a fast conversion leaves no room for anything intel may launch today or in the future.
Yeh, the M1 is probably better than the x86. But the processor is only a single component of a computer. And, today, it is no longer the limiting factor for the vast majority of users.
It's not a matter of lack of vision.
It's more like a shrug.
The M1 however WILL benefit the Macs in ways that WinTel will never be able to touch: It will enable Macs to integrate into what truly sets Apple hardware apart: Apple's ecosystem of integrated components where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
The majority of computers sold today are laptops. The biggest constraints for laptops are performance, battery life and of course size / form factor. Any other feature (like mini-led screens, etc.) are effectively commodity items than anyone can incorporate into their product. There will never be a x64 based device that can match Apple Silicon in that primary metric. As such, those who "shrug" this major change are effectively showing a lack of vision. The M1 is just a taste of what's to come. Wait until a beefier "M1x" variant is put in a 16" MacBook Pro for example. Intel has no effective response to that. Alderlake isn't going to bring any sense of parity there.
However, ultimately, Apple's chips will do little more than have the industry take notice and begin to accept that the future of desktop (and server) computing is likely going to be ARM based. It's up to ARM / Qualcomm / Microsoft to actually come up with a real alternative to Apple's SoCs to push ARM out in scale for the rest of the PC market.
Hmm the title is slightly disingenuous as of course Intel wouldn't be able to mimic the M1 design, nor would such a design yield the similar array of benefits in the x86 world. However I applaud the inclusion of high and low performance cores, since Intel seems to have legitimate issues with die shrink, so this would at least yield some power and heat benefits to the platform.
As for Apple and Intel - Apple's stated "2 year" roadmap to Apple Silicone pretty much precludes anything but providing speed-bumps to existing Intel-macs. Even with advanced notice there is no value for Apple to invest in development there.
We should also keep in mind that rumours for 2021 include Apple Silicone versions of the remaining MacBook Pros and iMacs. Leaving 2022 for just the iMac Pros and the Mac Pro (plus an additional Mac Pro entry level option if the rumours are true.)
Such a fast conversion leaves no room for anything intel may launch today or in the future.
Yeh, the M1 is probably better than the x86. But the processor is only a single component of a computer. And, today, it is no longer the limiting factor for the vast majority of users.
It's not a matter of lack of vision.
It's more like a shrug.
The M1 however WILL benefit the Macs in ways that WinTel will never be able to touch: It will enable Macs to integrate into what truly sets Apple hardware apart: Apple's ecosystem of integrated components where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
The majority of computers sold today are laptops. The biggest constraints for laptops are performance, battery life and of course size / form factor. Any other feature (like mini-led screens, etc.) are effectively commodity items than anyone can incorporate into their product. There will never be a x64 based device that can match Apple Silicon in that primary metric. As such, those who "shrug" this major change are effectively showing a lack of vision. The M1 is just a taste of what's to come. Wait until a beefier "M1x" variant is put in a 16" MacBook Pro for example. Intel has no effective response to that. Alderlake isn't going to bring any sense of parity there.
However, ultimately, Apple's chips will do little more than have the industry take notice and begin to accept that the future of desktop (and server) computing is likely going to be ARM based. It's up to ARM / Qualcomm / Microsoft to actually come up with a real alternative to Apple's SoCs to push ARM out in scale for the rest of the PC market.
Yes, the processor is a major component. But processors, for most people have reached the equivalent of 350hp engines in cars -- more just doesn't get you to the grocery store any faster.
My grandson just moved up from his iPhone Xr with an A12 processor to a far faster iPhone 12 Pro with a far faster A14 processor. But, he can't tell the difference!
But, the M1 will open other doors for Apple by enabling Macs to better integrate into Apple's ecosystem and become a more seamless part of the whole.
Yeh, the M1 is probably better than the x86. But the processor is only a single component of a computer. And, today, it is no longer the limiting factor for the vast majority of users.
It's not a matter of lack of vision.
It's more like a shrug.
The M1 however WILL benefit the Macs in ways that WinTel will never be able to touch: It will enable Macs to integrate into what truly sets Apple hardware apart: Apple's ecosystem of integrated components where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
The majority of computers sold today are laptops. The biggest constraints for laptops are performance, battery life and of course size / form factor. Any other feature (like mini-led screens, etc.) are effectively commodity items than anyone can incorporate into their product. There will never be a x64 based device that can match Apple Silicon in that primary metric. As such, those who "shrug" this major change are effectively showing a lack of vision. The M1 is just a taste of what's to come. Wait until a beefier "M1x" variant is put in a 16" MacBook Pro for example. Intel has no effective response to that. Alderlake isn't going to bring any sense of parity there.
However, ultimately, Apple's chips will do little more than have the industry take notice and begin to accept that the future of desktop (and server) computing is likely going to be ARM based. It's up to ARM / Qualcomm / Microsoft to actually come up with a real alternative to Apple's SoCs to push ARM out in scale for the rest of the PC market.
Yes, the processor is a major component. But processors, for most people have reached the equivalent of 350hp engines in cars -- more just doesn't get you to the grocery store any faster.
My grandson just moved up from his iPhone Xr with an A12 processor to a far faster iPhone 12 Pro with a far faster A14 processor. But, he can't tell the difference!
But, the M1 will open other doors for Apple by enabling Macs to better integrate into Apple's ecosystem and become a more seamless part of the whole.
On the mobile phones, Yes, I agree with you that the performance differences are NOT visible to the majority of the mainstream users/use cases. But on the laptop/desktop low/midrange market, I don't agree with you that CPU has reached a "fast enough" stage. I am currently using a windows 10 laptop with i5 8th Generation, 8GB of RAM and it is fairly slow for my needs. I do wish it were faster on multiple occasions. An M1 powered laptop would be far faster and does make a significant difference to the day-to-day user experience.
Yes, the processor is a major component. But processors, for most people have reached the equivalent of 350hp engines in cars -- more just doesn't get you to the grocery store any faster.
My grandson just moved up from his iPhone Xr with an A12 processor to a far faster iPhone 12 Pro with a far faster A14 processor. But, he can't tell the difference!
But, the M1 will open other doors for Apple by enabling Macs to better integrate into Apple's ecosystem and become a more seamless part of the whole.
With processor, there are two components that matter here. Performance AND efficiency. With phones, I agree that most use cases are much like going to the grocery store. Rarely are people pushing their devices to maximum potential with the possible exception of video exporting, games, etc. On laptops, we're not at a point where performance doesn't matter anymore. Far from it. The laptop use cases are different from phone use cases.
Further, efficieny clearly matters for all mobile devices. This is true for phones and it's true for laptops. The fact that the M1 based laptops get nearly twice the battery life as their Intel equivalents while also getting better performance is huge. I'd also argue that efficiency matters for powered desktops as well. Lower thermals helps the chips run at maximum speed without throttling as well.
Comments
As for Apple and Intel - Apple's stated "2 year" roadmap to Apple Silicone pretty much precludes anything but providing speed-bumps to existing Intel-macs. Even with advanced notice there is no value for Apple to invest in development there.
We should also keep in mind that rumours for 2021 include Apple Silicone versions of the remaining MacBook Pros and iMacs. Leaving 2022 for just the iMac Pros and the Mac Pro (plus an additional Mac Pro entry level option if the rumours are true.)
Such a fast conversion leaves no room for anything intel may launch today or in the future.
U.S. auto makers are very active in technology. Unfortunately that technology is 100 years old. But, for the past 4 years or so, they have been highly successful in talking a good game.
https://www.livescience.com/37598-silicon-or-silicone-chips-implants.html
Now, 'Apple Silicone' would take my mind to places it perhaps shouldn't wander. But I'm all for diversification!
However, ultimately, Apple's chips will do little more than have the industry take notice and begin to accept that the future of desktop (and server) computing is likely going to be ARM based. It's up to ARM / Qualcomm / Microsoft to actually come up with a real alternative to Apple's SoCs to push ARM out in scale for the rest of the PC market.
Further, efficieny clearly matters for all mobile devices. This is true for phones and it's true for laptops. The fact that the M1 based laptops get nearly twice the battery life as their Intel equivalents while also getting better performance is huge. I'd also argue that efficiency matters for powered desktops as well. Lower thermals helps the chips run at maximum speed without throttling as well.