Apple is just getting started with Apple Silicon

Posted:
in General Discussion
Apple has officially cleared out any remaining trace of Intel on its newest redesigned M2 MacBook Air and MacBook Pro models. Looking ahead, the company is just getting started.

Apple Silicon
Apple Silicon


The redesigned MacBook Air is an overhaul of the company's most popular portable notebook. Although other models, like the 14-inch MacBook Pro, come equipped with Apple Silicon chips, the 2022 MacBook Air provides the clearest picture of what we can expect from future Macs.

Apple kills the last trace of Intel

Apple appears to be going all-in on its own first-party chips. Or, at the very least, it's committed to transitioning away from Intel -- even when it comes with the tiniest components.

In the latest MacBook Air and M2-equipped MacBook Pro models, Apple has replaced an Intel-made chip that's used for controlling the laptop's USB and Thunderbolt ports with a custom-designed piece of silicon.

According to an iFixit teardown of the device, the USB4 retimer is no longer Intel's JHL8040R. Instead, it's a custom U09PY3 chip. It isn't clear if the piece is Apple-designed or made by another manufacturer.

Although the change largely went unnoticed until semiconductor industry watcher Skyjuice pointed it out, it does mean that the newest MacBook Air and Pro models don't have any Intel-made components in them.

Technically, Apple still has a couple of Mac models powered by Intel chips. Most notably, the current Mac Pro is still Intel-based, and the company is hanging on to a low-powered Mac mini model.

But the M2 MacBook Air and MacBook Pro both herald the end of an era. Apple will almost certainly follow suit with its own portable notebooks, including redesigns of the 14-inch MacBook Pro and 16-inch MacBook Pro.

In other words, there will come a time when there won't be a single Intel part in any Mac product. And, it's soon, given that Apple has already said that a Mac Pro is on the way.

Intel's problems

Apple has long has a focus on reducing its reliance on outside suppliers. Designing its own Mac chips in house is just one part of that strategy. However, it's likely that Intel's faults also played a part.

Back in June 2020, a report indicated that Intel's quality assurance issues with its Skylake chips may have played a part in Apple ditching them.

Beyond that, Intel has also had problems sticking with its roadmaps and deadlines. Just a month after the quality assurance news broke, Intel delayed the rollout of its 7-nanometer chips by six months. Before that, Intel had delayed its 10nm chip shipments for three years.

And, it hasn't been tick-tock for about a decade where's there's innovation, then refinement, then back to innovation. It's been tick-tock-tock-tock more often.

Apple is better off designing its own chips. While issues like semiconductor constraints and Covid manufacturing lockdowns can snarl production, those would still be issues on top of a chip supplier that can't meet its own deadlines.

Bound by Intel no longer

Apple doesn't design enclosures in a vacuum. When it designed the 2016 MacBook Pro enclosure, it relied on what Intel was promising it could deliver from a thermal and power perspective.

However, Intel was years behind what it promised to release from 2015 and on. Apple has historically used an enclosure for five to six years before moving on. And, that MacBook redesign was a victim of Intel's promises made, and not delivered.

Those promises? Intel is fulfilling them now, years after the MacBook was killed.

Instead, the 2022 MacBook Air represents a new age for the laptop that famously came out of an envelope. It's a MacBook Air designed with Apple Silicon in mind. It charts a new path for the company's portables, and for the Mac in general.

Apple has always preferred to keep tight control of its stack, from firmware, to full hardware, to operating systems. This "full stack" mentality is compete in the ultimate computing-as-an-appliance device, the iPhone.

Apple Silicon and other custom chip designs are the purest expression of that on the more-open Mac. And the new MacBook Air signals a sea change in how the company views its desktop and portable computers.

Future possibilities

Apple may not be planning on merging the iPad and Mac anytime soon, but there's no doubt that the company will continue bringing more iPhone- or iPad-like features to the Mac.

Apple Silicon was just the first example -- there are other echoes of Apple's smartphone design in its newest machines. For example, the newest MacBook Air uses a distinctly iPhone-esque connector for its internal battery.

There's not a limit of how far Apple can go here. By ditching Intel, the company is unburdening itself from the shackles of the chipmakers legacy technologies. Apple Silicon allows the company to charge ahead.

The Apple Silicon iPad and M2 MacBook Air are one side of the coin, and compact powerhouses like the Apple Studio are the other.

Apple Silicon has already introduced a lot of benefits, both for Apple itself, and for consumers. For example, it's hard to argue against both the performance and power consumption boosts that Apple Silicon brings to Mac models.

And Apple has room to grow, to be sure. The company could expand its thermal envelopes to get a higher-power chips without the need for massive cooling mechanisms or enclosure. An Apple Silicon Mac Pro could have a single "M2 Max," or it could sport a plethora of M-series chips.

Although Intel chips are catching up to Apple Silicon, they're doing so at a much higher power draw. That means comparable Intel-based machines need bigger batteries, which could put them at a disadvantage for portability and travel. The TSA has restrictions on batteries with more than 100 watt hours, for example.

Extrapolating based on the M2 chip, Apple's silicon has a lot of room for growth in this area too. The Cupertino tech giant is tailor-making its own parts according to its own specifications. It's no longer limited to another company's innovations, only its own.

From new controller chips to technologies that can provide additional efficiency for Apple products, segments like the Mac are only going to get better as time goes on.

While many review companies, such as Wirecutter, are putting Mac laptops in their own Apple-specific category, they really deserve to be compared to Intel rivals. Most users don't care if their machines are x86 or Apple Silicon, and may choose the latter silicon for its quietness, thermal efficiency, and long battery life.

It's been two years since the public-facing Apple Silicon hardware transition started, and many more since the initial plans were made internally. Through the company has already achieved a tremendous amount since then, Apple is still just getting started.

Read on AppleInsider
radarthekat
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 38
    As an owner of a 2019 MBP 16” Intel do I need to worry about Apple not supporting it anytime soon? 
    williamlondonkillroy
  • Reply 2 of 38
    22july201322july2013 Posts: 3,002member
    Apple's market penetration of the PC marketplace has been stuck under 10% for over 25 years. One way Apple tried to remedy this in the 1990s was to grant licenses to other companies to build Mac clones.
    WIKIPEDIA: From early 1995 through mid-1997, it was possible to buy PowerPC-based clone computers running Mac OS, most notably from Power Computing and UMAX. However, by 1996 Apple executives were worried that high-end clones were cannibalizing sales of their own high-end computers, where profit margins were highest.[18]

    A total of 33 companies made Mac clones, fully licensed. Apple could take this approach again if it wants to crack the 10% market penetration of MacOS. There's no need for anyone to ridicule me for suggesting this, as I'm already sure nobody will agree with me that Apple should try this again. However what's different this time around is that many countries are hassling Apple for not allowing competition on their devices, and if Apple licensed other manufacturers to build hardware clones and/or to replace the OS on Apple's devices, that would likely reduce the cries of "monopoly."

    narwhal
  • Reply 3 of 38
    sunman42sunman42 Posts: 166member
    As an owner of a 2019 MBP 16” Intel do I need to worry about Apple not supporting it anytime soon? 
    It depends on the country (and in the US, the state) in which you live, but the generic Apple policy in the US is that machines move to "Vintage" status (no support from or repair in App Stores or at Apple Authorized repair outfits unless they haven to have parts in stock) five years after Apple stopped selling that particular model (so roughly October 2026 for your model). At seven years, machines are classed "Obsolete," and no hardware service is available from Apple.

    All that said, Apple has stated that it's making spare parts and repair hardware available to consumers and repair shops (e.g. the recent iPhone parts and hardware made available in the last several months), so there may still be repair outfits that stock the parts for a year or two after the seven-year deadline.
    scstrrfjony0
  • Reply 4 of 38
    rob53rob53 Posts: 2,990member
    Since Apple now has its own USB-4/Thunderbolt chip does this mean they could design and manufacture external storage devices using the same chip design? I know there are plenty of third party enclosures but I’m sure most use Intel chips. With the Mac Pro coming, I could see an external RAID with Apple chips (SSD and RAID controller) being driven by multiple USB-4/TB ports to achieve ridiculous storage speeds for professional use. No third party chips needed. 
    scstrrftmaywatto_cobra
  • Reply 5 of 38
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,285member
    As an owner of a 2019 MBP 16” Intel do I need to worry about Apple not supporting it anytime soon? 
    sunman42 said:
    As an owner of a 2019 MBP 16” Intel do I need to worry about Apple not supporting it anytime soon? 
    It depends on the country (and in the US, the state) in which you live, but the generic Apple policy in the US is that machines move to "Vintage" status (no support from or repair in App Stores or at Apple Authorized repair outfits unless they haven to have parts in stock) five years after Apple stopped selling that particular model (so roughly October 2026 for your model). At seven years, machines are classed "Obsolete," and no hardware service is available from Apple.

    All that said, Apple has stated that it's making spare parts and repair hardware available to consumers and repair shops (e.g. the recent iPhone parts and hardware made available in the last several months), so there may still be repair outfits that stock the parts for a year or two after the seven-year deadline.
    The law in the US states that parts and service must be provided for seven years after a device is discontinued.
    stevenozjony0watto_cobramuthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 6 of 38
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,285member
    Apple's market penetration of the PC marketplace has been stuck under 10% for over 25 years. One way Apple tried to remedy this in the 1990s was to grant licenses to other companies to build Mac clones.
    WIKIPEDIA: From early 1995 through mid-1997, it was possible to buy PowerPC-based clone computers running Mac OS, most notably from Power Computing and UMAX. However, by 1996 Apple executives were worried that high-end clones were cannibalizing sales of their own high-end computers, where profit margins were highest.[18]

    A total of 33 companies made Mac clones, fully licensed. Apple could take this approach again if it wants to crack the 10% market penetration of MacOS. There's no need for anyone to ridicule me for suggesting this, as I'm already sure nobody will agree with me that Apple should try this again. However what's different this time around is that many countries are hassling Apple for not allowing competition on their devices, and if Apple licensed other manufacturers to build hardware clones and/or to replace the OS on Apple's devices, that would likely reduce the cries of "monopoly."

    This is a very different issue. Even if Apple did this, and they won’t, if they restricted certain types of services to their own, they would still be hit by these charges. In fact, the charges would have more meaning.
    jony0watto_cobra
  • Reply 7 of 38
    JinTechJinTech Posts: 892member
    Apple's market penetration of the PC marketplace has been stuck under 10% for over 25 years. One way Apple tried to remedy this in the 1990s was to grant licenses to other companies to build Mac clones.
    WIKIPEDIA: From early 1995 through mid-1997, it was possible to buy PowerPC-based clone computers running Mac OS, most notably from Power Computing and UMAX. However, by 1996 Apple executives were worried that high-end clones were cannibalizing sales of their own high-end computers, where profit margins were highest.[18]

    A total of 33 companies made Mac clones, fully licensed. Apple could take this approach again if it wants to crack the 10% market penetration of MacOS. There's no need for anyone to ridicule me for suggesting this, as I'm already sure nobody will agree with me that Apple should try this again. However what's different this time around is that many countries are hassling Apple for not allowing competition on their devices, and if Apple licensed other manufacturers to build hardware clones and/or to replace the OS on Apple's devices, that would likely reduce the cries of "monopoly."

    I think it's pretty clear Apple is not worried about cracking the 10%. Apple will never license its OS again. Again, it's clear Apple is all about quality and not quantity. They have very publicly stated that they take pride in developing everything in-house to bring the best Mac experience possible.
    scstrrflibertyandfreewilliamlondonnetroxnarwhallolliverradarthekatjony0watto_cobra
  • Reply 8 of 38
    genovellegenovelle Posts: 1,382member
    Apple's market penetration of the PC marketplace has been stuck under 10% for over 25 years. One way Apple tried to remedy this in the 1990s was to grant licenses to other companies to build Mac clones.
    WIKIPEDIA: From early 1995 through mid-1997, it was possible to buy PowerPC-based clone computers running Mac OS, most notably from Power Computing and UMAX. However, by 1996 Apple executives were worried that high-end clones were cannibalizing sales of their own high-end computers, where profit margins were highest.[18]

    A total of 33 companies made Mac clones, fully licensed. Apple could take this approach again if it wants to crack the 10% market penetration of MacOS. There's no need for anyone to ridicule me for suggesting this, as I'm already sure nobody will agree with me that Apple should try this again. However what's different this time around is that many countries are hassling Apple for not allowing competition on their devices, and if Apple licensed other manufacturers to build hardware clones and/or to replace the OS on Apple's devices, that would likely reduce the cries of "monopoly."

    Market share chasing was the foolish game they were sucked into back then. It was the primary factor that nearly killed apple. It would be dumb to do that. They currently make a majority of the industry profits because they dominate the most profitable segment of the market. The market share chase devalued the Mac and siphoned sales while negatively impacting profitability. 

    Jobs killed this immediately upon his return because it was counter productive. None of the PC companies that whose model they were copying at that time survived as they were. IBM exited retail and Dell’s founder found an equity group to go private because they were bleeding out and shareholders were running out of patience. 
    scstrrfdanoxwilliamlondonlolliverradarthekatDaRevjony0watto_cobra
  • Reply 9 of 38
    ApplePoorApplePoor Posts: 161member
    The bigger issue for maturing hardware is the possibility that MacOS may require "hardware" not found in my 2019 16" Intel laptop. A lot of the end of life equipment lack the video capability for the newer operating systems.

    Having a 2021 14" MBPro Max and a 2019 16" Intel MBPro allows me to really appreciate how quiet the new generation is. The 16" runs the fans at full tilt even on startup and lots of the time even with very light loads.  I have yet to hear the fans in the 14".

    So the 16" is my legacy system (despite no USB-A ports) for some older equipment that I have to phase out gradually. 
    edited August 2 scstrrfwilliamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 10 of 38
    mpantonempantone Posts: 1,845member
    ApplePoor said:
    The bigger issue for maturing hardware is the possibility that MacOS may require "hardware" not found in my 2019 16" Intel laptop. A lot of the end of life equipment lack the video capability for the newer operating systems.
    There is nothing new here. Apple always discontinues software support at some point for a given hardware model. You can't run iOS 15.6 on an iPhone 3G.

    At some point, probably around 2026, Apple will discontinue macOS support for your 2019 MacBook. At that point, you will have to stay with whatever version of macOS your Mac still runs knowing that Apple only provides security updates for the previous two generations of macOS.

    Right now Monterey is the shipping version of macOS with Big Sur and Crapalina still receiving security updates. When Ventura releases this fall, Crapalina will fall off and no longer receive security updates.

    It is important to point out that your Mac still does everything it did when you bought it. When you use a computer with peripherals, you do so knowing that peripheral support will eventually expire whether it be Apple, the peripheral producer or both. There should never be any expectation that Apple will support your system forever.

    They have never done so and neither has any other consumer PC hardware manufacturer.
    baconstangwilliamlondonlolliverjony0watto_cobra
  • Reply 11 of 38
    dewmedewme Posts: 4,314member
    As an owner of a 2019 MBP 16” Intel do I need to worry about Apple not supporting it anytime soon? 
    Apple will continue to support Intel Macs within the scope and timeframe of how they support all Macs. However, we are already seeing that some newer features on newer versions of macOS will not necessarily be available on Intel Macs even when the newer macOS version installs and runs on the Intel Mac. 

    At this point Apple and Intel are amicably divorced. Apple has its own life and Intel has its own life. Buyers of Intel based computers are not suffering for performance compared to buyers of Mac computers. 

    The newest Intel chips have excellent performance and can be upgraded significantly in the GPU department. What Intel buyers are missing out on is incredible performance coupled with lower power demands. As long as you can find somewhere to plug in your Intel computer and don’t mind having a toasty lap when using an Intel based portable, everything but your lap is cool. 

    Intel Inside = find a power cord on the outside. 

    sphericwilliamlondonwatto_cobramuthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 12 of 38
    Apple's market penetration of the PC marketplace has been stuck under 10% for over 25 years. One way Apple tried to remedy this in the 1990s was to grant licenses to other companies to build Mac clones.
    WIKIPEDIA: From early 1995 through mid-1997, it was possible to buy PowerPC-based clone computers running Mac OS, most notably from Power Computing and UMAX. However, by 1996 Apple executives were worried that high-end clones were cannibalizing sales of their own high-end computers, where profit margins were highest.[18]

    A total of 33 companies made Mac clones, fully licensed. Apple could take this approach again if it wants to crack the 10% market penetration of MacOS. There's no need for anyone to ridicule me for suggesting this, as I'm already sure nobody will agree with me that Apple should try this again. However what's different this time around is that many countries are hassling Apple for not allowing competition on their devices, and if Apple licensed other manufacturers to build hardware clones and/or to replace the OS on Apple's devices, that would likely reduce the cries of "monopoly."

    That’s sort how I felt until they released the 2019 Mac Pro. If they weren’t interested in making workstations anymore because the market was too small then just spin it off into another company like a NeXT that focused on those types of machines and license the OS to only that one company for that specific market.
    williamlondonjony0watto_cobramuthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 13 of 38
    sphericspheric Posts: 2,225member
    As an owner of a 2019 MBP 16” Intel do I need to worry about Apple not supporting it anytime soon? 
    I think you can probably expect the 2023 release of macOS to be the last one supported on your machine, with vital security updates following for another two years or so after that. 
    williamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 14 of 38
    thttht Posts: 4,444member
    Apple's market penetration of the PC marketplace has been stuck under 10% for over 25 years. One way Apple tried to remedy this in the 1990s was to grant licenses to other companies to build Mac clones.
    WIKIPEDIA: From early 1995 through mid-1997, it was possible to buy PowerPC-based clone computers running Mac OS, most notably from Power Computing and UMAX. However, by 1996 Apple executives were worried that high-end clones were cannibalizing sales of their own high-end computers, where profit margins were highest.[18]

    A total of 33 companies made Mac clones, fully licensed. Apple could take this approach again if it wants to crack the 10% market penetration of MacOS. There's no need for anyone to ridicule me for suggesting this, as I'm already sure nobody will agree with me that Apple should try this again. However what's different this time around is that many countries are hassling Apple for not allowing competition on their devices, and if Apple licensed other manufacturers to build hardware clones and/or to replace the OS on Apple's devices, that would likely reduce the cries of "monopoly."

    I don't think any of the monopoly cries on Apple are about Macs. It's all about the iOS App Store and iOS platform fees. Even there, I think it is terrible decision making by governments on a platform that is 15% share of the smartphone market, but government is government. Apple will adjust. Not one pip from the usual monopoly crowd regarding Macs.

    Regarding licensing, I don't think there is any way to cross the Rubicon here save for one. Apple's hardware strategy, for basically every piece of hardware they have, is a premium hardware strategy. As soon as they license macOS, their premium hardware sales will crater. The trade in money is always going to be a net loss. Ie, the profits from macOS licensing fees will always be less than the profits they get from hardware sales.

    I think the only way they could really make it work is that they happen to have a monopoly in some other market to buttress the loss of revenue from hardware sales. Microsoft has a monopoly on office automation, with a vice like grip on enterprise office automation. This is the sole reason why there aren't any non Microsoft operating systems in the client x86 market. There is a reason the only successful client OSes in the past 30 years are the ones with MS Office is available for it. If Office isn't available for your operating system, it will not be successful in the x86 client market.

    The only way to attack it is with free licensing using cheap hardware like ChromeOS or Raspberry Pi or to be in a market where MS can't use its monopolies like with servers. MS wants to sell a $100 license for Windows. Really can't sell a $300 laptop with a $100 OS license. $300 laptops are really a service play and Google has a monopoly on the biggest service in the Internet age. Those $300 ChromeOS laptops typically come with Google provided services for bulk buyers, so they are using cheap hardware to sell services.

    I do think 15% unit share is achievable in PC unit share for Apple. They do need more software, services and cheaper hardware to do it though. Apple Arcade has to reach at least a Nintendo like quality of games and permanence, enough such that people buying Macs can play most games other people are playing. They need to get more software on macOS, to be Swift native. And, they need to have an $800 laptop. They can do that today by putting an A15 SoC with 8 GB RAM and 128 GB NAND in a MBA, but they don't want to.

    Same deal with iPads. Stage Manager and external monitor support is step 1. Lots of steps remain just with the software alone before they even need to think about the hardware. If they put in the software work, iPads can be 15 to 30m units per quarter.
    watto_cobramuthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 15 of 38
    ApplePoorApplePoor Posts: 161member
    If Apple concedes the Mac Pro business to others, then where is the need for perhaps the Mac Studio?

    The current M1 Studio version totally lacks the ability to swap components. As initially configured it will always be.

    The port configuration on my ordered M1 Studio Ultra (128GB Ram and 8TB SSD) has six Thunderbolt 4 ports, two USB-A ports. one 10Gbs ethernet port, a HDMI port, a SD card slot and an audio out port. It is slated to arrive at the local Apple Store  on 11 October.

    The port configuration of my 2013 Mac Pro (128GB Ram and 2TB SSD) six core Intel processor and 500 series video cards has 4 USB-A ports, six Thunderbolt 2 ports, two 1Gbs ethernet ports, a HDMI port and microphone in and earphone/speakers out audio ports. I was able to upgrade both the RAM and SSD to where it is now. In theory, if parts could still be sourced, the video cards and CPU could still be up graded as well. It is running the current Monterey operating system (although this is the last MacOS upgrade for it). That is nearly a nine year run since I got it new in late 2013.

    I sincerely doubt that this new Mac Studio will have the ability to run the latest MacOS in nine years even it is still operational.

    Our two 2019 16" Intel MBPros were built in December of 2019 and were still being sold way into the summer of 2021. They have to have parts for seven years for the units sold in California. The mechanics should be good until 2026. The MacOS could drop support much sooner. However, my 2018 Intel Mac mini (64GB Ram and 2TB SSD) is still being sold now in August of 2022. Possibly this fall there may be  M2 versions as the top mini model. But support in the Mac OS would need to continue through the extended warranties in effect for units sold this year. Also anyone paying top dollar for the Intel MacPro will require this support as well.

    The mini is a relatively simple fix as the M1 mini exists now. A M2 chip with 24GB of ram and perhaps more SSD choices above the 2TB current limit would all fit into the current M1 mini chassis.

    I believe Apple can not wait to get rid of the last two Intel computers. 
    williamlondonkillroywatto_cobra
  • Reply 16 of 38
    danoxdanox Posts: 1,065member
    Apple's market penetration of the PC marketplace has been stuck under 10% for over 25 years. One way Apple tried to remedy this in the 1990s was to grant licenses to other companies to build Mac clones.
    WIKIPEDIA: From early 1995 through mid-1997, it was possible to buy PowerPC-based clone computers running Mac OS, most notably from Power Computing and UMAX. However, by 1996 Apple executives were worried that high-end clones were cannibalizing sales of their own high-end computers, where profit margins were highest.[18]

    A total of 33 companies made Mac clones, fully licensed. Apple could take this approach again if it wants to crack the 10% market penetration of MacOS. There's no need for anyone to ridicule me for suggesting this, as I'm already sure nobody will agree with me that Apple should try this again. However what's different this time around is that many countries are hassling Apple for not allowing competition on their devices, and if Apple licensed other manufacturers to build hardware clones and/or to replace the OS on Apple's devices, that would likely reduce the cries of "monopoly."

    Your right the idea is the extreme heights of stupid…..
    williamlondonlolliverkillroywatto_cobra
  • Reply 17 of 38
    danoxdanox Posts: 1,065member
    Apple's market penetration of the PC marketplace has been stuck under 10% for over 25 years. One way Apple tried to remedy this in the 1990s was to grant licenses to other companies to build Mac clones.
    WIKIPEDIA: From early 1995 through mid-1997, it was possible to buy PowerPC-based clone computers running Mac OS, most notably from Power Computing and UMAX. However, by 1996 Apple executives were worried that high-end clones were cannibalizing sales of their own high-end computers, where profit margins were highest.[18]

    A total of 33 companies made Mac clones, fully licensed. Apple could take this approach again if it wants to crack the 10% market penetration of MacOS. There's no need for anyone to ridicule me for suggesting this, as I'm already sure nobody will agree with me that Apple should try this again. However what's different this time around is that many countries are hassling Apple for not allowing competition on their devices, and if Apple licensed other manufacturers to build hardware clones and/or to replace the OS on Apple's devices, that would likely reduce the cries of "monopoly."

    That’s sort how I felt until they released the 2019 Mac Pro. If they weren’t interested in making workstations anymore because the market was too small then just spin it off into another company like a NeXT that focused on those types of machines and license the OS to only that one company for that specific market.

    Or just wait until next Apple CEO comes along, not building truck Mac computers in a timely matter won’t go well long term, and off load to a third party will not work.
    williamlondon
  • Reply 18 of 38
    danoxdanox Posts: 1,065member
    genovelle said:
    Apple's market penetration of the PC marketplace has been stuck under 10% for over 25 years. One way Apple tried to remedy this in the 1990s was to grant licenses to other companies to build Mac clones.
    WIKIPEDIA: From early 1995 through mid-1997, it was possible to buy PowerPC-based clone computers running Mac OS, most notably from Power Computing and UMAX. However, by 1996 Apple executives were worried that high-end clones were cannibalizing sales of their own high-end computers, where profit margins were highest.[18]

    A total of 33 companies made Mac clones, fully licensed. Apple could take this approach again if it wants to crack the 10% market penetration of MacOS. There's no need for anyone to ridicule me for suggesting this, as I'm already sure nobody will agree with me that Apple should try this again. However what's different this time around is that many countries are hassling Apple for not allowing competition on their devices, and if Apple licensed other manufacturers to build hardware clones and/or to replace the OS on Apple's devices, that would likely reduce the cries of "monopoly."

    Market share chasing was the foolish game they were sucked into back then. It was the primary factor that nearly killed apple. It would be dumb to do that. They currently make a majority of the industry profits because they dominate the most profitable segment of the market. The market share chase devalued the Mac and siphoned sales while negatively impacting profitability. 

    Jobs killed this immediately upon his return because it was counter productive. None of the PC companies that whose model they were copying at that time survived as they were. IBM exited retail and Dell’s founder found an equity group to go private because they were bleeding out and shareholders were running out of patience. 

    IBM and Dell are currently tech of Christmas past, even back their heyday they were never going to move the needle for Apple. New clone makers would only under cut and cheapen the Apple brand.
    williamlondonlolliverkillroyjony0watto_cobra
  • Reply 19 of 38
    tundraboytundraboy Posts: 1,830member
    Apple's market penetration of the PC marketplace has been stuck under 10% for over 25 years. One way Apple tried to remedy this in the 1990s was to grant licenses to other companies to build Mac clones.
    WIKIPEDIA: From early 1995 through mid-1997, it was possible to buy PowerPC-based clone computers running Mac OS, most notably from Power Computing and UMAX. However, by 1996 Apple executives were worried that high-end clones were cannibalizing sales of their own high-end computers, where profit margins were highest.[18]

    A total of 33 companies made Mac clones, fully licensed. Apple could take this approach again if it wants to crack the 10% market penetration of MacOS. There's no need for anyone to ridicule me for suggesting this, as I'm already sure nobody will agree with me that Apple should try this again. However what's different this time around is that many countries are hassling Apple for not allowing competition on their devices, and if Apple licensed other manufacturers to build hardware clones and/or to replace the OS on Apple's devices, that would likely reduce the cries of "monopoly."

    Charges of 'monopoly' have been leveled against the iPhone not Macs.  At 10% market share, Macs are in no danger of being accused of monopolizing the personal computing market.
    StrangeDayslolliverjony0watto_cobra
  • Reply 20 of 38
    sphericspheric Posts: 2,225member
    tundraboy said:
    Apple's market penetration of the PC marketplace has been stuck under 10% for over 25 years. One way Apple tried to remedy this in the 1990s was to grant licenses to other companies to build Mac clones.
    WIKIPEDIA: From early 1995 through mid-1997, it was possible to buy PowerPC-based clone computers running Mac OS, most notably from Power Computing and UMAX. However, by 1996 Apple executives were worried that high-end clones were cannibalizing sales of their own high-end computers, where profit margins were highest.[18]

    A total of 33 companies made Mac clones, fully licensed. Apple could take this approach again if it wants to crack the 10% market penetration of MacOS. There's no need for anyone to ridicule me for suggesting this, as I'm already sure nobody will agree with me that Apple should try this again. However what's different this time around is that many countries are hassling Apple for not allowing competition on their devices, and if Apple licensed other manufacturers to build hardware clones and/or to replace the OS on Apple's devices, that would likely reduce the cries of "monopoly."

    Charges of 'monopoly' have been leveled against the iPhone not Macs.  At 10% market share, Macs are in no danger of being accused of monopolizing the personal computing market.
    Also, any developer is free to offer software for Macintosh outside the App Store. 
    killroywatto_cobra
Sign In or Register to comment.