Yeha I guess it?s a coincidence that Apple was basically dead before they switched over to Intel. Switching to Intel was a HUGE step for apple. They did it for a reason, look at their stock price, oh wait I guess that?s due to the success apple saw with its ?G? series processors. I know about 20 people who DID buy an apple, only because it had an Intel chip, or because you could installed windows with ease.
Apples success directly correlates with them switching to Intel. Think about the bigger picture. Set your appfanboyism ego aside. I love macs. They make great hardware, but shit will go downhill if they ditch Intel. It essentially leveled the playing field for apple. Now they can say ?hey look at our hardware, it has the same shit as your crappy cheap computer, but instead ours don?t break 3 months after you buy it, and it runs Windows just as fast if not faster than ANY piece of crap you can throw at me?" The first Intel mac was a revolutionary laptop. It was the first commercially available dual core laptop. PERIOD. Apple had first dips to the processor.
Apple going Intel opened doors to .. well? the rest of the market?. Like all those windows users. Now that apple has the windows users on their hardware we now see the average windows user with an iphones, ipads etc? Loose the windows base and you are done. All you will be left with is the crazy apple fan boys.
Your comment reminds me of a conversation that I had with a friend of mine back in January. It was the day that Apple's Q4 2010 results had come out. Needless to say, Apple crushed estimates again. When I told him about Apple's blowout results, his exact words were "Thanks to Intel." He explained that comment to me by saying that because Intel makes good chips that are in the Macs, Apple did well.
His claim is off the mark for a number of reason. First of all, iOS sales account for a far greater percentage of Apple's revenues than Mac sales. So how does one component supplier explain every dollar of revenue for Apple, even when said component supplier's product isn't even used in devices that account for over half of Apple's revenue? Secondly, everybody else has been using Intel chips for years. Yet, none of them make anywhere near as much money as Apple makes off of PC sales (A Mac is A PC too, btw). In fact, by then, the growth of Macs had outpaced the overall PC market for TWENTY consecutive quarters, and that's not a typo. So it stands to reason that Apple is getting something right that everybody else isn't even though Apple and everybody else use Intel processors.
Also, Microsoft plans to port Windows over to ARM. So there is a way to solve the problem of Windows compatibility if Apple wants to get away from Intel. As a shareholder in Apple, Apple has earned my trust in them. I trust them to really think things through before taking such big steps. I have full confidence that it will work out well.
It was Apple' switch to Intel and yes, Boot Camp, so I could ween myself off Windows, that prompted me to make the switch to Mac in October '07. Just sold that 5 year old C2D MBP for $760 and replaced it with Intel i5 MBA that cost peanuts because my old Intel Mac held its value so well! So I don't expect Apple and Intel will part ways anytime soon. Intel is to microchips what Apple is to computers.
The Macbook name has now been freed up by the discontinuation of the white polycarb. So they could make a new low-cost Macbook using an ARM CPU. Look how cheap they can make the Apple TV using that CPU. It could be the cheapest Mac ever.
BUT then it would compete too closely with the iPad so I don't think they will do it.
If Apple does anything with their own CPU, IMO expect a totally different line of desktop Macs, with some sort of iPhone or iPad-like interface. I would expect the OS to be a further convergence of iOS and Mac OS X, running ARM stuff only, unless a x86 flavor of Rosetta, running x86 code on ARM is in the works. Think "Marklar."
Uncle Steve's paradigm has been to throw older technology under the bus (can you say Apple II?) He was smart enough from getting thrown out of his own company to understand the opportunity the iPhone presented. Simply look at how iOS and Mac OS X are converging (can you say Lion?).
Remember, Apple doesn't exist for the rest of us -- it's a Fortune 500 killing machine making stuff for the rest of us. Apple supports its older technology as long as people will throw money at it. The Mac as we know it today will survive, but what it will look like tomorrow is something else again.
...And are a nightmare of registers and state changes. If it wasn't for their design group in Israel that came up with NetBurst AMD would have cleaned their clock. The original Pentium 4's were a disaster - hot and slow. A great combination!
That Intel has managed to keep the gawd-awful x86 architecture alive and competitive for as long as they have is the real marvel...
Well after the Pentium 4 fiasco they brought their A-game to the table. The first Core Duo onwards were all clear performance-per-watt leaders in the laptop and desktop space. And the first decent dual-core (hey, it was HUGE then!) laptop CPU. The first Core Duo MacBooks sure had some loud fan noise and heat was always a challenge, but it delivered enough power in a compact form factor.
Over time they pretty much destroyed anything AMD had to offer over the past several years, in terms of CPU performance-per-watt (but not cost). Quite a turnaround.
And just in time for Apple, with the PowerPC G5 a powerful but extremely hot chip that could never make it into a laptop.
Outside of that though, we see their weaknesses. Graphics never really took off, but luckily by the time Nvidia was shut out it became "good enough" for the average user. They got lucky again with Atom but that will be seen as short-lived.
Throw in some monopolistic practices, locking out Nvidia, and we have what we have.
But ARM is the real dark horse, because it looks like it can scale up a lot easier than Intel going any lower.
I do Arc, too. It would be great if they made a Mac ArcGIS. You know, they used to have it on OS 9! It would also be nice if their software wasn't a pile of crap in terms of user interface. I can't believe we still have to "connect" to folder and only can edit things in one folder. Hey, have you used Arc 10 yet sda? I have the latest version w/ patches on Win 7 on a vanilla PC and it crashes all the time. And no multiple attribute windows.
I would love to see ArcGIS released for mac. They have recently released some of their viewer software for iOS so I am hopeful that they are working on a mac based version of arc. I have only played around in 10, not fully using it. I agree though, the interfaces in the ARC software is a bit outdated, I am surprised that they haven't gone to an interface more like their explorer software. As macs become more mainstream we can only hope they start more development for OSX.
Besides, the success of the 2010 MacBook Air and now the 2011 MacBook Air would have prompted some competition, anyway. Before the late 2010 model, the Air occupied the same ultraportable niche that premium/luxury products like the Sony Vaio line did, which was small enough for the rest of the industry to ignore. When last year's MacBook Air shot up the sales charts, even with an ancient processor, it made the industry take notice. Intel is just speeding the process along a bit.
Apple remains the primary driver of those parts by a substantial amount. Intel doesn't want Apple to have too much pricing power. Intel wants to remain the differentiator in this industry rather than be subject to Apple's whims. Intel does NOT want a monopsony.
Comments
Yeha I guess it?s a coincidence that Apple was basically dead before they switched over to Intel. Switching to Intel was a HUGE step for apple. They did it for a reason, look at their stock price, oh wait I guess that?s due to the success apple saw with its ?G? series processors. I know about 20 people who DID buy an apple, only because it had an Intel chip, or because you could installed windows with ease.
Apples success directly correlates with them switching to Intel. Think about the bigger picture. Set your appfanboyism ego aside. I love macs. They make great hardware, but shit will go downhill if they ditch Intel. It essentially leveled the playing field for apple. Now they can say ?hey look at our hardware, it has the same shit as your crappy cheap computer, but instead ours don?t break 3 months after you buy it, and it runs Windows just as fast if not faster than ANY piece of crap you can throw at me?" The first Intel mac was a revolutionary laptop. It was the first commercially available dual core laptop. PERIOD. Apple had first dips to the processor.
Apple going Intel opened doors to .. well? the rest of the market?. Like all those windows users. Now that apple has the windows users on their hardware we now see the average windows user with an iphones, ipads etc? Loose the windows base and you are done. All you will be left with is the crazy apple fan boys.
Your comment reminds me of a conversation that I had with a friend of mine back in January. It was the day that Apple's Q4 2010 results had come out. Needless to say, Apple crushed estimates again. When I told him about Apple's blowout results, his exact words were "Thanks to Intel." He explained that comment to me by saying that because Intel makes good chips that are in the Macs, Apple did well.
His claim is off the mark for a number of reason. First of all, iOS sales account for a far greater percentage of Apple's revenues than Mac sales. So how does one component supplier explain every dollar of revenue for Apple, even when said component supplier's product isn't even used in devices that account for over half of Apple's revenue? Secondly, everybody else has been using Intel chips for years. Yet, none of them make anywhere near as much money as Apple makes off of PC sales (A Mac is A PC too, btw). In fact, by then, the growth of Macs had outpaced the overall PC market for TWENTY consecutive quarters, and that's not a typo. So it stands to reason that Apple is getting something right that everybody else isn't even though Apple and everybody else use Intel processors.
Also, Microsoft plans to port Windows over to ARM. So there is a way to solve the problem of Windows compatibility if Apple wants to get away from Intel. As a shareholder in Apple, Apple has earned my trust in them. I trust them to really think things through before taking such big steps. I have full confidence that it will work out well.
ARM's goal is to move upstream into Netbook class laptops. Intel's goal is to move down into
the mobile devices like Tablets and Smartphones.
Either way Apple goes they will be likely be delivering a sub notebook that offers 12+ hours of battery life and good general performance.
If you need virtualization it simply won't be the notebook for your needs and intel based Macbook won't be going anywhere.
BUT then it would compete too closely with the iPad so I don't think they will do it.
Uncle Steve's paradigm has been to throw older technology under the bus (can you say Apple II?) He was smart enough from getting thrown out of his own company to understand the opportunity the iPhone presented. Simply look at how iOS and Mac OS X are converging (can you say Lion?).
Remember, Apple doesn't exist for the rest of us -- it's a Fortune 500 killing machine making stuff for the rest of us. Apple supports its older technology as long as people will throw money at it. The Mac as we know it today will survive, but what it will look like tomorrow is something else again.
...And are a nightmare of registers and state changes. If it wasn't for their design group in Israel that came up with NetBurst AMD would have cleaned their clock. The original Pentium 4's were a disaster - hot and slow. A great combination!
That Intel has managed to keep the gawd-awful x86 architecture alive and competitive for as long as they have is the real marvel...
Well after the Pentium 4 fiasco they brought their A-game to the table. The first Core Duo onwards were all clear performance-per-watt leaders in the laptop and desktop space. And the first decent dual-core (hey, it was HUGE then!) laptop CPU. The first Core Duo MacBooks sure had some loud fan noise and heat was always a challenge, but it delivered enough power in a compact form factor.
Over time they pretty much destroyed anything AMD had to offer over the past several years, in terms of CPU performance-per-watt (but not cost). Quite a turnaround.
And just in time for Apple, with the PowerPC G5 a powerful but extremely hot chip that could never make it into a laptop.
Outside of that though, we see their weaknesses. Graphics never really took off, but luckily by the time Nvidia was shut out it became "good enough" for the average user. They got lucky again with Atom but that will be seen as short-lived.
Throw in some monopolistic practices, locking out Nvidia, and we have what we have.
But ARM is the real dark horse, because it looks like it can scale up a lot easier than Intel going any lower.
I do Arc, too. It would be great if they made a Mac ArcGIS. You know, they used to have it on OS 9! It would also be nice if their software wasn't a pile of crap in terms of user interface. I can't believe we still have to "connect" to folder and only can edit things in one folder. Hey, have you used Arc 10 yet sda? I have the latest version w/ patches on Win 7 on a vanilla PC and it crashes all the time. And no multiple attribute windows.
I would love to see ArcGIS released for mac. They have recently released some of their viewer software for iOS so I am hopeful that they are working on a mac based version of arc. I have only played around in 10, not fully using it. I agree though, the interfaces in the ARC software is a bit outdated, I am surprised that they haven't gone to an interface more like their explorer software. As macs become more mainstream we can only hope they start more development for OSX.
Intel owns the rights to Thunderbolt, so there could be licensing issues in switching to ARM.
Apple has rights to use Thunderbolt for any product, including non-Intel, but not to sublicense or make incompatible versions.
Besides, the success of the 2010 MacBook Air and now the 2011 MacBook Air would have prompted some competition, anyway. Before the late 2010 model, the Air occupied the same ultraportable niche that premium/luxury products like the Sony Vaio line did, which was small enough for the rest of the industry to ignore. When last year's MacBook Air shot up the sales charts, even with an ancient processor, it made the industry take notice. Intel is just speeding the process along a bit.
Apple remains the primary driver of those parts by a substantial amount. Intel doesn't want Apple to have too much pricing power. Intel wants to remain the differentiator in this industry rather than be subject to Apple's whims. Intel does NOT want a monopsony.
But ARM is the real dark horse, because it looks like it can scale up a lot easier than Intel going any lower.
Exactly - it will be interesting to see where things go....