The problem for Intel and Microsoft is that they have - for decades - touted features and lower cost as a reason to purchase or upgrade PCs.
The problem for ultrabooks - which are trying to obviously copy Apple - is that they have fewer features and cost much more than the previous generation of PCs.
This completely goes against the grain of previous and decades of marketing.
People buy PCs because they are cheap and have more features.
They won't buy Ultrabooks because they are the exact opposite.
Only Apple can sell products which have fewer features and cost more.
What made the Mac popular in 2006/7 is a little product called Vista. People (including myself and several of my friends) decided that if we were making a wholesale change to Vista and something new, then OSX was no longer a risk. And Vista was (and is) a piece of crap.
I had also long ago the desire to return to Apple world, and this was for me the trigging fact. I have now 4 Macs at home (two teenagers), NEVER had a problem for which they required my assistance.
If MS was smart (and we know the answer to that question) they would dump Windows 8 for ARM and focus on developing a tablet version of their Windows phone OS. I don't understand why anyone would want to run Windows 8 on any hardware if they can't run their standard Windows 8 apps on that hardware.
Worst idea ever!
The "metro" UI that will run on all versions of Windows 8 (i.e desktop/laptop/tablet & ARM/x86) is basically v2 of the Windows Phone UI without the crappy underlying OS (Windows CE).
It's likely that Windows 8 will make its way down to the phone, not the other way around.
The problem for Intel and Microsoft is that they have - for decades - touted features and lower cost as a reason to purchase or upgrade PCs.
The problem for ultrabooks - which are trying to obviously copy Apple - is that they have fewer features and cost much more than the previous generation of PCs.
This completely goes against the grain of previous and decades of marketing.
People buy PCs because they are cheap and have more features.
They won't buy Ultrabooks because they are the exact opposite.
Only Apple can sell products which have fewer features and cost more.
The writer of this article, Daniel Eran Dilger, has no clue -- NONE!!! -- what Adam Smith's invisible hand of the market metaphor refers to or means. Had he known, he wouldn't have used it to shoot what's remaining of his credibility straight to Hell. How embarrassing. What he said is complete, utter NONSENSE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jameskatt2
Ultrabooks are going to lose - big time.
The problem for Intel and Microsoft is that they have - for decades - touted features and lower cost as a reason to purchase or upgrade PCs.
The invisible hand is described as "competition between buyers and sellers that channels the profit motive of individuals on both sides of the transaction such that improved products are produced at lower costs". Apple has, for as long as I can remember, lived up to their mantra of being a yardstick of quality.
Year after year, their higher quality products have driven the competition to improve the quality of their products while undercutting Apple on price simply because the market has decided that Apple's compromise between quality and price is the one they prefer.
Apple makes a revolutionary phone, the competition is all about phones.
Apple makes a revolutionary tablet, the competition all try to make decent tablets.
Apple makes an ultraportable that is affordable and fast enough that it drives the competition to get out of their dangerous race to the bottom (chunky, heavy plastic laptops that generate little to no profit).
Ultrabooks won't fail because they offer what Apple has demonstrated is the right set of compromises to make for the consumer. The PC marketing teams just have to learn that thin, light and having long battery life are features too. Shipping with SSDs will also drive their price.
While the perpetual references to Apple's influence can be seen as specious, there's no question we have the best phones, tablets and laptops now that they all look like the ones Apple pioneered. Apple doesn't own a patent on innovation but there's no denying that their influence has been the driving force in the tech industry and it's for the better. The competition and hard-nosed haters will continue to hold them in contempt but they will end up better off.
Having the option to run windows is a major argument in sellling macs to windows users, like it or not.
that is definitely true for businesses and independent contractors. many small/medium businesses have some staff with macs and many others with windows. being able to switch to the specialized Windows applications many businesses use when needed is a big advantage for staff/contractors who otherwise prefer macs. this also applies to education administration ... so there is a big market for Boot Camp out there. but for consumers, probably not so much.
Also, with so many jumping into the ultrabooks segment, the inevitable and relentless downward price pressures will start. All these guys will be back to square one in yet another business they've commoditized.
Also, with so many jumping into the ultrabooks segment, the inevitable and relentless downward price pressures will start. All these guys will be back to square one in yet another business they've commoditized.
No, they never release individual category sales, but remember there have been players in the ultraportable market as soon as they could copy the first MBA. I think they are selling good enough to keep them going. Apple is clearly taking more profit than anyone else and probably a lot more than half the profit for this $800+ range of notebook, but that doesn't mean they still can't be profitable for other OEMs.
I don't think Intel or OEMs were being stupid with its Ultrabook reference design or request for a $100 drop in CULV prices, respectively. I think they crunched the numbers and found something that can work. Also, Windows 7 is good. It's not Mac OS X good, but it's good. What that means is that those using Win7 and wanting a new notebook will be less likely to question whether to switch OSes unlike those using a languished WinXP, trying to avoid suffering with Vista, or those realizing they will have issues going from 32-bit to 64-bit in Windows.
Apple may not have invented it but they sure as hell made it standard, but along with being a leader is having followers. If we look at the smartphone sector Samsung is profiting well from HW that copies Apple using a capable yet inferior OS. While they can't be compared well those two specific things are very close to how I see Samsung's Ultrabooks and Win7.
That the WIN PC market to consumers is split as such:
5% Diehard WIN PC fans or Apple contrarians who refuse to buy an Apple no matter how much better it is. (aka: Zune & Rio buyers).
95% whose WIN PC has so devalued the experience they are only willing to pay rock bottom pricing for a WIN PC. They who can or are willing not to completely abandon the whole personal computing thing "as a chore" have switched to Macs or ipads and they rarely come back. And of course, there are Linux & Chrome users but they loathe to pay anything for hardware but will accept $200 as a substitute for buying a box of parts but not much more.
So, the only people left are the ones who cannot escape or are afraid to escape the MS PC ecosystem but they are unwilling to spend anything more than rock bottom pricing. Look at netbooks, the only REGRESSION consumer tech technology - slower and lower specs, why? Because buying a $299 netbook is cheaper than buying a $599 laptop. And it has the doubling cripple effect of lower margins so EVERY corner is cut down to the wiring.
This Intel endeavor serves no purpose because it reinforces the notion that all PC's are the same running the same microprocessor and it's all cosmetic so BUY BY PRICE!
Intel's ad message? Just that. Ultrabooks are cool because they're powered by Intel. Then 5 seconds of a bunch of ultrabooks flashing by. Intel will spend $1 billion to say NOTHING.
AND with 20-40 ultrabook competitors, what will be the selling message. We're an ultrabook but we're only $799! Followed 3 days later with another ad from a competitor saying we're $749! In 6 months, 75% of the ultrabook sellers will be losing money and the others have 2% margins just like on netbooks.
Meanwhile, above the fray is Apple. For those who can afford to spend a few hundred dollars more to get a secure OS, leading edge hardware design and free tech support for life will do so. The remaining who grumble they are stuck in WIN PC world will go for the cheapest price because WIN PC are the most work, and break the easiest so why spend any more than you have to?
WIN 8 won't help as MS will start dialing up the marketing and consumers know two things. the First release of any WIN OS is a FAIL - wait 6 months to 2 years and of course, the whole tile thing will confuse the hell out of people. So again, it's set in stone for the next 2 years.
If you can afford a better computer experience, you choose Apple. If you cannot, no point in rushing out to buy a PC especially an ultrabook priced like a Mac. No way is it going to be as good of an experience so wait until it gets to about $399.
And yea, MS' ad campaign to build a PC store in your house? WTF?
Intel & MS had their consumer day in the Sun 1995 to 2002. But in the internet age, they have the clout of a plastic bag.
I still see plenty of $500-600 regular laptops (not ultrabooks) every week in the flyers for Best Buy and Staples.
Aren't these the volume sellers in Windows laptops?
How long will PC OEMs keep pushing $1000-1200 ultrabooks when their plain ol' laptops outsell them 10:1 ?
Competition among Windows ultrabooks may force them down to around $700... but then the margins start to become razor-thin like normal laptops. Then the manufacturers will be in the same place they are now.
And then there's Apple... Apple is already the leader in $1000+ laptop sales. What will make people buy Windows ultrabooks if they're priced at or above $1000 ?
I still see plenty of $500-600 regular laptops (not ultrabooks) every week in the flyers for Best Buy and Staples.
Aren't these the volume sellers in Windows laptops?
How long will PC OEMs keep pushing $1000-1200 ultrabooks when their plain ol' laptops outsell them 10:1 ?
Competition among Windows ultrabooks may force them down to around $700... but then the margins start to become razor-thin like normal laptops. Then the manufacturers will be in the same place they are now.
And then there's Apple... Apple is already the leader in $1000+ laptop sales. What will make people buy Windows ultrabooks if they're priced at or above $1000 ?
The average PC laptop sells for $750, right? Ultrabooks are more than that but I don't think they are exceptionally high. Plus, that is the average and since non-Mac PCs sell for $400 (or even lower) in get quantity) I don't think that selling for $800-$1,200 means they don't have enough sales or enough profit margin to support these efforts.
We'll see in a year at CES if more Ultrabooks are at CES, just as we saw Android-based tablets fall off this year CES over last year. I think there will be more Ultrabooks and more AIO desktop solutions. I think we're moving toward the PC as just another device, like Jobs said.
The average PC laptop sells for $750, right? Ultrabooks are more than that but I don't think they are exceptionally high. Plus, that is the average and since non-Mac PCs sell for $400 (or even lower) in get quantity) I don't think that selling for $800-$1,200 means they don't have enough sales or enough profit margin to support these efforts.
We'll see in a year at CES if more Ultrabooks are at CES, just as we saw Android-based tablets fall off this year CES over last year. I think there will be more Ultrabooks and more AIO desktop solutions. I think we're moving toward the PC as just another device, like Jobs said.
I hadn't heard that the average PC laptop is $750. If that's true... good for them! That means they sell a lot of $1000 PC laptops as well as $500 PC laptops.
I seriously don't know. I guess they lure people into the store with the $500 PC laptops in the weekly paper... and then sell 'em a more expensive PC laptop.
I hadn't heard that the average PC laptop is $750. If that's true... good for them! That means they sell a lot of $1000 PC laptops as well as $500 PC laptops.
I seriously don't know. I guess they lure people into the store with the $500 PC laptops in the weekly paper... and then sell 'em a more expensive PC laptop.
Looks like I was off. It was more than $1000 per PC in the late 90s but continued to drop as it always had, according to Wikipedia. I found this 2010 article from just over a year ago that shows the PC prices rising. I assume the iPad had a lot to do with this rise as by the then the interest in netbooks was surely waning as they proved what that there executions were better. I also assume this has continued to rise.
Looks like I was off. It was more than $1000 per PC in the late 90s but continued to drop as it always had, according to Wikipedia. I found this 2010 article from just over a year ago that shows the PC prices rising. I assume the iPad had a lot to do with this rise as by the then the interest in netbooks was surely waning as they proved what that there executions were better. I also assume this has continued to rise.
Yeah. I'm friends with a lot of college-aged kids and plenty of regular folks too... and I rarely see someone with a Dell or HP that retails anywhere close to $1000. Even $800 is a stretch.
I'm looking at this week's Best Buy ad. Here are the prices listed for Windows laptops:
$349
$399
$429
$549
$579
$629
$749
$849
The average price of these particular laptops is $566. The PC manufacturers obviously have a target price range. And Best Buy must think these laptops will sell this week... since they are promoting them.
Apple, on the other hand, has always charged a premium price for their laptops... citing the OS, the built-in apps and the overall experience as reasons to pay more. And it seems to work... since Apple rules the $1000+ club.
I just don't think PC manufacturers will be able to charge $1000... no matter how thin and sexy these ultrabooks may be.
The point is, that the transition to intel made this all possible. Why do you think they made the switch to begin with? It's something they needed to do years before they did. Going to a non-PC compatible processor will only harm Apple. It would be an ill advised move.
I can see Apple selling the MacBook Air with ARM or Intel processors for a while. Obviously, Apple will have their iLife and iWork apps ready from day-one, and the people writing games for iOS will quickly update/add games for Macs. It will take less than a year for the majority of the developers to offer a version that uses the ARM processor.
The Mac mini and the iMac will get ARM processors, but they will not be the ones used in the notebooks since they do not use batteries. They will most likely use a customized version of the Cortex-A15.
While the above is pure speculation, one thing we can be sure of is that no ARM processor will make its way into Macs until the processors are 64-bit.
Comments
The problem for Intel and Microsoft is that they have - for decades - touted features and lower cost as a reason to purchase or upgrade PCs.
The problem for ultrabooks - which are trying to obviously copy Apple - is that they have fewer features and cost much more than the previous generation of PCs.
This completely goes against the grain of previous and decades of marketing.
People buy PCs because they are cheap and have more features.
They won't buy Ultrabooks because they are the exact opposite.
Only Apple can sell products which have fewer features and cost more.
What made the Mac popular in 2006/7 is a little product called Vista. People (including myself and several of my friends) decided that if we were making a wholesale change to Vista and something new, then OSX was no longer a risk. And Vista was (and is) a piece of crap.
I had also long ago the desire to return to Apple world, and this was for me the trigging fact. I have now 4 Macs at home (two teenagers), NEVER had a problem for which they required my assistance.
If MS was smart (and we know the answer to that question) they would dump Windows 8 for ARM and focus on developing a tablet version of their Windows phone OS. I don't understand why anyone would want to run Windows 8 on any hardware if they can't run their standard Windows 8 apps on that hardware.
Worst idea ever!
The "metro" UI that will run on all versions of Windows 8 (i.e desktop/laptop/tablet & ARM/x86) is basically v2 of the Windows Phone UI without the crappy underlying OS (Windows CE).
It's likely that Windows 8 will make its way down to the phone, not the other way around.
Ultrabooks are going to lose - big time.
The problem for Intel and Microsoft is that they have - for decades - touted features and lower cost as a reason to purchase or upgrade PCs.
The problem for ultrabooks - which are trying to obviously copy Apple - is that they have fewer features and cost much more than the previous generation of PCs.
This completely goes against the grain of previous and decades of marketing.
People buy PCs because they are cheap and have more features.
They won't buy Ultrabooks because they are the exact opposite.
Only Apple can sell products which have fewer features and cost more.
Bingo. They are DOA.
The writer of this article, Daniel Eran Dilger, has no clue -- NONE!!! -- what Adam Smith's invisible hand of the market metaphor refers to or means. Had he known, he wouldn't have used it to shoot what's remaining of his credibility straight to Hell. How embarrassing. What he said is complete, utter NONSENSE.
Ultrabooks are going to lose - big time.
The problem for Intel and Microsoft is that they have - for decades - touted features and lower cost as a reason to purchase or upgrade PCs.
The invisible hand is described as "competition between buyers and sellers that channels the profit motive of individuals on both sides of the transaction such that improved products are produced at lower costs". Apple has, for as long as I can remember, lived up to their mantra of being a yardstick of quality.
Year after year, their higher quality products have driven the competition to improve the quality of their products while undercutting Apple on price simply because the market has decided that Apple's compromise between quality and price is the one they prefer.
Apple makes a revolutionary phone, the competition is all about phones.
Apple makes a revolutionary tablet, the competition all try to make decent tablets.
Apple makes an ultraportable that is affordable and fast enough that it drives the competition to get out of their dangerous race to the bottom (chunky, heavy plastic laptops that generate little to no profit).
Ultrabooks won't fail because they offer what Apple has demonstrated is the right set of compromises to make for the consumer. The PC marketing teams just have to learn that thin, light and having long battery life are features too. Shipping with SSDs will also drive their price.
While the perpetual references to Apple's influence can be seen as specious, there's no question we have the best phones, tablets and laptops now that they all look like the ones Apple pioneered. Apple doesn't own a patent on innovation but there's no denying that their influence has been the driving force in the tech industry and it's for the better. The competition and hard-nosed haters will continue to hold them in contempt but they will end up better off.
Bingo. They are DOA.
There must be some market for these $800+ notebooks because Sony is still making them in droves, though they pale in comparison to Samsung and others.
Having the option to run windows is a major argument in sellling macs to windows users, like it or not.
that is definitely true for businesses and independent contractors. many small/medium businesses have some staff with macs and many others with windows. being able to switch to the specialized Windows applications many businesses use when needed is a big advantage for staff/contractors who otherwise prefer macs. this also applies to education administration ... so there is a big market for Boot Camp out there. but for consumers, probably not so much.
There must be some market for these $800+ notebooks because Sony is still making them in droves, though they pale in comparison to Samsung and others.
Do we know how well they sell?
Also, with so many jumping into the ultrabooks segment, the inevitable and relentless downward price pressures will start. All these guys will be back to square one in yet another business they've commoditized.
Do we know how well they sell?
Also, with so many jumping into the ultrabooks segment, the inevitable and relentless downward price pressures will start. All these guys will be back to square one in yet another business they've commoditized.
No, they never release individual category sales, but remember there have been players in the ultraportable market as soon as they could copy the first MBA. I think they are selling good enough to keep them going. Apple is clearly taking more profit than anyone else and probably a lot more than half the profit for this $800+ range of notebook, but that doesn't mean they still can't be profitable for other OEMs.
I don't think Intel or OEMs were being stupid with its Ultrabook reference design or request for a $100 drop in CULV prices, respectively. I think they crunched the numbers and found something that can work. Also, Windows 7 is good. It's not Mac OS X good, but it's good. What that means is that those using Win7 and wanting a new notebook will be less likely to question whether to switch OSes unlike those using a languished WinXP, trying to avoid suffering with Vista, or those realizing they will have issues going from 32-bit to 64-bit in Windows.
Apple may not have invented it but they sure as hell made it standard, but along with being a leader is having followers. If we look at the smartphone sector Samsung is profiting well from HW that copies Apple using a capable yet inferior OS. While they can't be compared well those two specific things are very close to how I see Samsung's Ultrabooks and Win7.
5% Diehard WIN PC fans or Apple contrarians who refuse to buy an Apple no matter how much better it is. (aka: Zune & Rio buyers).
95% whose WIN PC has so devalued the experience they are only willing to pay rock bottom pricing for a WIN PC. They who can or are willing not to completely abandon the whole personal computing thing "as a chore" have switched to Macs or ipads and they rarely come back. And of course, there are Linux & Chrome users but they loathe to pay anything for hardware but will accept $200 as a substitute for buying a box of parts but not much more.
So, the only people left are the ones who cannot escape or are afraid to escape the MS PC ecosystem but they are unwilling to spend anything more than rock bottom pricing. Look at netbooks, the only REGRESSION consumer tech technology - slower and lower specs, why? Because buying a $299 netbook is cheaper than buying a $599 laptop. And it has the doubling cripple effect of lower margins so EVERY corner is cut down to the wiring.
This Intel endeavor serves no purpose because it reinforces the notion that all PC's are the same running the same microprocessor and it's all cosmetic so BUY BY PRICE!
Intel's ad message? Just that. Ultrabooks are cool because they're powered by Intel. Then 5 seconds of a bunch of ultrabooks flashing by. Intel will spend $1 billion to say NOTHING.
AND with 20-40 ultrabook competitors, what will be the selling message. We're an ultrabook but we're only $799! Followed 3 days later with another ad from a competitor saying we're $749! In 6 months, 75% of the ultrabook sellers will be losing money and the others have 2% margins just like on netbooks.
Meanwhile, above the fray is Apple. For those who can afford to spend a few hundred dollars more to get a secure OS, leading edge hardware design and free tech support for life will do so. The remaining who grumble they are stuck in WIN PC world will go for the cheapest price because WIN PC are the most work, and break the easiest so why spend any more than you have to?
WIN 8 won't help as MS will start dialing up the marketing and consumers know two things. the First release of any WIN OS is a FAIL - wait 6 months to 2 years and of course, the whole tile thing will confuse the hell out of people. So again, it's set in stone for the next 2 years.
If you can afford a better computer experience, you choose Apple. If you cannot, no point in rushing out to buy a PC especially an ultrabook priced like a Mac. No way is it going to be as good of an experience so wait until it gets to about $399.
And yea, MS' ad campaign to build a PC store in your house? WTF?
Intel & MS had their consumer day in the Sun 1995 to 2002. But in the internet age, they have the clout of a plastic bag.
Aren't these the volume sellers in Windows laptops?
How long will PC OEMs keep pushing $1000-1200 ultrabooks when their plain ol' laptops outsell them 10:1 ?
Competition among Windows ultrabooks may force them down to around $700... but then the margins start to become razor-thin like normal laptops. Then the manufacturers will be in the same place they are now.
And then there's Apple... Apple is already the leader in $1000+ laptop sales. What will make people buy Windows ultrabooks if they're priced at or above $1000 ?
I still see plenty of $500-600 regular laptops (not ultrabooks) every week in the flyers for Best Buy and Staples.
Aren't these the volume sellers in Windows laptops?
How long will PC OEMs keep pushing $1000-1200 ultrabooks when their plain ol' laptops outsell them 10:1 ?
Competition among Windows ultrabooks may force them down to around $700... but then the margins start to become razor-thin like normal laptops. Then the manufacturers will be in the same place they are now.
And then there's Apple... Apple is already the leader in $1000+ laptop sales. What will make people buy Windows ultrabooks if they're priced at or above $1000 ?
The average PC laptop sells for $750, right? Ultrabooks are more than that but I don't think they are exceptionally high. Plus, that is the average and since non-Mac PCs sell for $400 (or even lower) in get quantity) I don't think that selling for $800-$1,200 means they don't have enough sales or enough profit margin to support these efforts.
We'll see in a year at CES if more Ultrabooks are at CES, just as we saw Android-based tablets fall off this year CES over last year. I think there will be more Ultrabooks and more AIO desktop solutions. I think we're moving toward the PC as just another device, like Jobs said.
The average PC laptop sells for $750, right? Ultrabooks are more than that but I don't think they are exceptionally high. Plus, that is the average and since non-Mac PCs sell for $400 (or even lower) in get quantity) I don't think that selling for $800-$1,200 means they don't have enough sales or enough profit margin to support these efforts.
We'll see in a year at CES if more Ultrabooks are at CES, just as we saw Android-based tablets fall off this year CES over last year. I think there will be more Ultrabooks and more AIO desktop solutions. I think we're moving toward the PC as just another device, like Jobs said.
I hadn't heard that the average PC laptop is $750. If that's true... good for them! That means they sell a lot of $1000 PC laptops as well as $500 PC laptops.
I seriously don't know. I guess they lure people into the store with the $500 PC laptops in the weekly paper... and then sell 'em a more expensive PC laptop.
I hadn't heard that the average PC laptop is $750. If that's true... good for them! That means they sell a lot of $1000 PC laptops as well as $500 PC laptops.
I seriously don't know. I guess they lure people into the store with the $500 PC laptops in the weekly paper... and then sell 'em a more expensive PC laptop.
Looks like I was off. It was more than $1000 per PC in the late 90s but continued to drop as it always had, according to Wikipedia. I found this 2010 article from just over a year ago that shows the PC prices rising. I assume the iPad had a lot to do with this rise as by the then the interest in netbooks was surely waning as they proved what that there executions were better. I also assume this has continued to rise.
Looks like I was off. It was more than $1000 per PC in the late 90s but continued to drop as it always had, according to Wikipedia. I found this 2010 article from just over a year ago that shows the PC prices rising. I assume the iPad had a lot to do with this rise as by the then the interest in netbooks was surely waning as they proved what that there executions were better. I also assume this has continued to rise.
Yeah. I'm friends with a lot of college-aged kids and plenty of regular folks too... and I rarely see someone with a Dell or HP that retails anywhere close to $1000. Even $800 is a stretch.
I'm looking at this week's Best Buy ad. Here are the prices listed for Windows laptops:
$349
$399
$429
$549
$579
$629
$749
$849
The average price of these particular laptops is $566. The PC manufacturers obviously have a target price range. And Best Buy must think these laptops will sell this week... since they are promoting them.
Apple, on the other hand, has always charged a premium price for their laptops... citing the OS, the built-in apps and the overall experience as reasons to pay more. And it seems to work... since Apple rules the $1000+ club.
I just don't think PC manufacturers will be able to charge $1000... no matter how thin and sexy these ultrabooks may be.
I just don't think PC manufacturers will be able to charge $1000... no matter how thin and sexy these ultrabooks may be.
Other than the fact that they've already announced the prices to be that high.
The point is, that the transition to intel made this all possible. Why do you think they made the switch to begin with? It's something they needed to do years before they did. Going to a non-PC compatible processor will only harm Apple. It would be an ill advised move.
I can see Apple selling the MacBook Air with ARM or Intel processors for a while. Obviously, Apple will have their iLife and iWork apps ready from day-one, and the people writing games for iOS will quickly update/add games for Macs. It will take less than a year for the majority of the developers to offer a version that uses the ARM processor.
The Mac mini and the iMac will get ARM processors, but they will not be the ones used in the notebooks since they do not use batteries. They will most likely use a customized version of the Cortex-A15.
While the above is pure speculation, one thing we can be sure of is that no ARM processor will make its way into Macs until the processors are 64-bit.
It will take less than a year for the majority of the developers to offer a version that uses the ARM processor.
The day Apple switches to ARM for desktop-style computers is the day Adobe drops Mac support. Again. Remember that.
The biggest problem for Ultrabooks is that they're too expensive to compete with the MacBook Air.
Oh snap!
"Apple has become an invisible hand directing the show.."
This seems just a little specious, no?
I guess it's a matter of perspective. Let's flip it around - would you say Apple had no or little influence on the tone or products offered?