After this little episode, I feel about Intel exactly the way I feel about Samsung! I'll never buy an Intel computer ever again! Boycott Intel and everybody that buys from them!
"We have the $300-million Intel capital fund to kick-start this innovation, and we're bringing everyone together and saying, hey, this is a great opportunity," the representatives said. "We're definitely working with our partners to supply a lot more volume, which will bring Ultrabooks down to the mainstream price points."
blah, blah, blah...
In other words, "We're copying the wheel, we're saying we're reinventing it, and we're putting a flat tire on it." And, "If we build it, they will come."
Quote:
Upcoming Ultrabooks sporting designs that can transform from clamshell into tablet are thought to be big sellers and although similar products have been available for some time, Intel's thin and light platform will make the format a bit more portable. Windows 8 was mentioned as being a driver in touch computing on convertible laptops.
I would really love to see this done well. OS is probably going to suck. Maybe it could be hackintoshed with OSX and iOS.
Please. If it runs Windows we know what the end result is. I'm not being haughty, just FFS wake up and smell the lag.
As for tablet-transforming things, Apple will probably decimate it when they come out with a MacBook Air being made of purely two multitouch screens, one normal, one retina. Yes, kind of like two tablets clamshelled but though through properly.
Like this but better, of course, imagine it with an elegant hinge and better styling:
Careful, Intel. AMD CPUs may be rubbish, but Apple can design their own you know.
You read too much tech site kool-aid. Everyone claims that you'll never notice the difference between intel's fastest and slowest. Macbook Pro is over the top in power. Apparently so is the imac, but AMD sucks because their cpus are weak? These irrational comments give me a headache at times. If anything AMD's designs are going in a better direction than Intel on the low power end. They just lack the resources of Intel.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bregalad
The kicker? In almost every case the high end PC carries a lower price tag than the entry level Mac.
I like OS X and the aluminum unibody case is very practical, but there's no denying that Mac buyers pay a huge premium for them.
I don't necessarily give Apple a free pass on everything, but the rule varies quite a bit. It depends on compared configurations. You can often get a good PC for less, but this doesn't mean that's always the case, and you are paying a premium for OSX.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodlink
Steve would be on the phone asking for those Intel employees to be fired.
And perhaps they should.
Please Tim Cook, DO NOT BECOME RELIANT ON INTEL.
Are you Steve Jobs? No... you're a random jerk. They're entitled to their opinion. It was presented as an opinion, not slander.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigBillyGoatGruff
In other words, "We're copying the wheel, we're saying we're reinventing it, and we're putting a flat tire on it." And, "If we build it, they will come."
I would really love to see this done well. OS is probably going to suck. Maybe it could be hackintoshed with OSX and iOS.
I have a feeling the hackintosh crowd would have trouble with drivers on that one. That's really more of a hobbyist thing. If you want a Mac, buy a Mac.
Not really. In terms of units Macs are way behind iPad now. Apple could pull the plug on Intel anytime by EOL'ing several Mac products, and introduce a souped-up ARM MacBook Air with two multitouch LCDs in a laptop format.
They wouldn't because, well, there's no good reason to at this stage, but I'm sure the groundwork has been done.
Intel is not dependent on Apple and Apple is not dependent on Intel.
Actually, it's the only way they can compete. Not much differentiation other than shiny knobs if you have no choice but to use the same OS as the competition. People are not willing to pay extra for shiny knobs.
Intel wouldn't even be developing 'mobile' chipsets if Apple hadn't pushed them to improve power/battery/storage/throughput functionality for the Airs - they'd be off in lala land somewhere.
Statements that are against products that just happen to be made by one of their major clients seems pretty short sighted. There is such a thing as keeping one's mouth shut. Unless as I said in a previous post, they suspect their days as an Apple supplier are short ...
Intel's cheeks are chapped because Apple won't let them slap one of their damned "Intel Inside" stickers on the MBA chassis.
Apple's poised to drop in anti-reflective screens with quadruple the pixel count into light-weight indestructible liquid metal cases... in other wards "ultra" will get a new meaning all too soon.
The comparisons I have seen of ARM versus Intel indicates that Intel processors are an order of magnitude ahead of ARM processors.
Given the recent apparent rapid evolution of ARM processors, is ARM merely three generations from rivaling current Intel processors?
While Intel continues to advance their processors, are they doing so at a rate that will still exceed ARM processors five years from now?
Is software optimization not an important factor? As we know, iOS already provides limited versions of iLife (GarageBand, iMovie and iPhoto) and iWork (Keynote, Numbers, Pages). Software optimization is a key strategy for Apple.
If Apple were to switch to ARM processors across their entire line up, would Apple really be at a disadvantage in regards to software? I think not. iOS has far more software available than OS X although iOS software would need considerable effort to fully meet expectations.
Cheap and plentiful is what the PC business is all about.
Wealth transfer from customers to shareholders is what Apple is all about.
Open your local Best Buy flyer and you're likely to see some variation on this:
An entry level MacBook Pro pictured next to a totally tricked out PC notebook with the latest quad core i7, a fancy discrete video chip with tons of VRAM, double the RAM, double the storage, etc.
The kicker? In almost every case the high end PC carries a lower price tag than the entry level Mac.
I like OS X and the aluminum unibody case is very practical, but there's no denying that Mac buyers pay a huge premium for them.
You'll go through two or three of those PC notebooks before you re-sell your MacBook Pro. The end result is that you paid more to own crap.
In all the years I've enjoyed Mac Portables, I'm writing this on my second one; bought this MBP in 2006 and it's running strong. Previous to this I bought a small white MacBook, G3 and it was still running like new when I gave it away to a student to use.
The comparisons I have seen of ARM versus Intel indicates that Intel processors are an order of magnitude ahead of ARM processors.
Given the recent apparent rapid evolution of ARM processors, is ARM merely three generations from rivaling current Intel processors?
While Intel continues to advance their processors, are they doing so at a rate that will still exceed ARM processors five years from now?
Is software optimization not an important factor? As we know, iOS already provides limited versions of iLife (GarageBand, iMovie and iPhoto) and iWork (Keynote, Numbers, Pages). Software optimization is a key strategy for Apple.
If Apple were to switch to ARM processors across their entire line up, would Apple really be at a disadvantage in regards to software? I think not. iOS has far more software available than OS X although iOS software would need considerable effort to fully meet expectations.
The gap between ARM and Intel is still wide enough to be an issue. I don't expect Apple to switch their MacBooks over to ARM/iOS and lose the programs for the Mac and lose some horse power as well. ARM brings better power management to the table, but the tradeoffs are too great at the moment.
What Apple has done with iOS is interesting. They have optimized the OS to match the hardware CPU/GPU. This is one reason Apple doesn't need the hardware specs that Android needs. This optimization will continue to give Apple an edge in the ultra-portable device arena.
What will happen in the MBA type of laptop is still a bit of a mystery. My expectation is that Apple will stay with OSX and raise the bar for what people will want by improving the user experience; i.e. retina screens, friendlier touchpads, lighter weight, more indestructible liquid metal cases, etc.
To paraphrase Steve Jobs: If we can't make it better, we won't make it.
You'll go through two or three of those PC notebooks before you re-sell your MacBook Pro. The end result is that you paid more to own crap.
In all the years I've enjoyed Mac Portables, I'm writing this on my second one; bought this MBP in 2006 and it's running strong. Previous to this I bought a small white MacBook, G3 and it was still running like new when I gave it away to a student to use.
This is more crap. In fact the situation is the opposite of what you describe. Macs go out of date faster. XP is still supported for a huge range of software. Nothing from the PowerPC era is supported by anything current, and Apple is dropping quite a few older intel machines with Mountain Lion. If this is a PCs break more often thing, that applies if you're buying a bad one. I've owned mostly Macs. I've dealt with both quite a lot, and you're not even close to correct.
Now you can use a Mac past its supported life, but you can do that with a PC too. It's just really tiring to read the same ridiculous lies. If you're comparing remotely comparable price points, you have solid choices on either side. If you're going to compare a $300 netbook to a $1300 Mac, that's a poor point of reference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacBook Pro
Is software optimization not an important factor? As we know, iOS already provides limited versions of iLife (GarageBand, iMovie and iPhoto) and iWork (Keynote, Numbers, Pages). Software optimization is a key strategy for Apple.
It would be more a matter of other software. Many third party applications recently transitioned to 64 bit versions under OSX. By recently I mean 2010 to 2011. If there's a lack of software support, it would be from third party developers, and once again, their influence is under estimated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacBook Pro
If Apple were to switch to ARM processors across their entire line up, would Apple really be at a disadvantage in regards to software? I think not. iOS has far more software available than OS X although iOS software would need considerable effort to fully meet expectations.
Well they'd lose a bigger portion of their market than you might think if they did this today, and the cost reduction would be much less given that the way a soc would be designed for a macbook would be completely different from what is currently designed for the iphone and ipad. It would also have a lag period in terms of software. At the highly demanding end that could be a year or two. Now the short sighted opinion is that they could ditch this, but it closes a lot of doors for mass adoption that were opened by the success of the ipad and iphone.
Edit: I'm trying to figure out the point of this. Are you suggesting they do this for better hardware control or to control costs? Here's my opinion. I don't think they'd do such a thing until relatively uninhibited applications are developed for IOS. Many of the software developers have been busy with IOS development, but given ram and cpu limitations, these aren't anywhere near as robust as their OSX counterparts. When that changes or is within a generation away, it "could" make more sense. Right now I think the catching up period would be too great. Right now the desire for this seems to be driven by ARM marketing kool-aid. It works exceptionally well on the low power end, but it's really pretty untested beyond that.
"and with an operating system that people have come to love over the years" - I think this is the same kind of "love" that sparks between a rape victim and her rapist, who tortured her over the years. She's locked in the basement, she can't run, so she gives up fighting. Looks like the kind of relationship between Windows and it's users.
"'Ultra' means pinnacle, and we wanted the Ultrabook to be the pinnacle of everything that users have come to expect from their computing device," the representatives said. "So we did extensive research into what users' expectations were for their mobile computing devices, and there were four things that really stood out."
1. Make it like an Apple.
2. Make it like an Apple.
3. Make it like an Apple.
4. Make it like an Apple.
The downside is Windows, obviously, but anyone who "loves" Windows deserves to be lumbered with it, frankly.
Cheap and plentiful is what the PC business is all about.
Wealth transfer from customers to shareholders is what Apple is all about.
Now wait a minute... the PC manufacturers have to answer to shareholders too. They are all in business to make money.
But that's starting to become an issue. Remember when both HP and Dell were toying around with the idea about getting out of the PC business?
That's because "cheap and plentiful" doesn't pay the bills. Well... it does... but just barely.
The PC manufactuers all make basically the same product... Windows PCs. And they are all in competition with each other...
They're slashing prices left and right... trying to make their "Windows PC" more attractive than the other guy's "Windows PC"
It's a bloodbath. They're all selling commodity items... and that's why their margins are so thin. I wouldn't say "cheap and plentiful" is any kind of business goal... and it's precisely the market Apple avoids.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bregalad
Open your local Best Buy flyer and you're likely to see some variation on this:
An entry level MacBook Pro pictured next to a totally tricked out PC notebook with the latest quad core i7, a fancy discrete video chip with tons of VRAM, double the RAM, double the storage, etc.
The kicker? In almost every case the high end PC carries a lower price tag than the entry level Mac.
I like OS X and the aluminum unibody case is very practical, but there's no denying that Mac buyers pay a huge premium for them.
There's no doubt that you can get some amazing hardware for sometimes cheaper than a Mac. But since you're on a Mac-friendly website... you should know what Apple is all about.
Apple sells you a product with great hardware and software. OSX is their baby... as is iLife. They've also got iCloud and the Mac App Store... stuff you can't easily get anywhere else.
They want to sell you a total package... and they price it accordingly.
Everybody sells Windows laptops... while Apple is the only company who sells Macs. But they only charge what the market can bear.
We don't need to get into a line-item comparison between Windows laptops and MacBooks. But you're right... you can get some killer hardware for cheaper than a Mac.
Lol if Intel are dismissing MacBook Air and iPad why are they trying to make products that look identical to them. The four things they stated as key points are exactly what Apple delivered when they first released the Macboom Air.
Comments
/s
blah, blah, blah...
"We have the $300-million Intel capital fund to kick-start this innovation, and we're bringing everyone together and saying, hey, this is a great opportunity," the representatives said. "We're definitely working with our partners to supply a lot more volume, which will bring Ultrabooks down to the mainstream price points."
blah, blah, blah...
In other words, "We're copying the wheel, we're saying we're reinventing it, and we're putting a flat tire on it." And, "If we build it, they will come."
Upcoming Ultrabooks sporting designs that can transform from clamshell into tablet are thought to be big sellers and although similar products have been available for some time, Intel's thin and light platform will make the format a bit more portable. Windows 8 was mentioned as being a driver in touch computing on convertible laptops.
I would really love to see this done well. OS is probably going to suck. Maybe it could be hackintoshed with OSX and iOS.
As for tablet-transforming things, Apple will probably decimate it when they come out with a MacBook Air being made of purely two multitouch screens, one normal, one retina. Yes, kind of like two tablets clamshelled but though through properly.
Like this but better, of course, imagine it with an elegant hinge and better styling:
http://www.123rf.com/photo_9309003_g...ed-on-whi.html
Careful, Intel. AMD CPUs may be rubbish, but Apple can design their own you know.
You read too much tech site kool-aid. Everyone claims that you'll never notice the difference between intel's fastest and slowest. Macbook Pro is over the top in power. Apparently so is the imac, but AMD sucks because their cpus are weak
The kicker? In almost every case the high end PC carries a lower price tag than the entry level Mac.
I like OS X and the aluminum unibody case is very practical, but there's no denying that Mac buyers pay a huge premium for them.
I don't necessarily give Apple a free pass on everything, but the rule varies quite a bit. It depends on compared configurations. You can often get a good PC for less, but this doesn't mean that's always the case, and you are paying a premium for OSX.
Steve would be on the phone asking for those Intel employees to be fired.
And perhaps they should.
Please Tim Cook, DO NOT BECOME RELIANT ON INTEL.
Are you Steve Jobs? No... you're a random jerk. They're entitled to their opinion. It was presented as an opinion, not slander.
In other words, "We're copying the wheel, we're saying we're reinventing it, and we're putting a flat tire on it." And, "If we build it, they will come."
I would really love to see this done well. OS is probably going to suck. Maybe it could be hackintoshed with OSX and iOS.
I have a feeling the hackintosh crowd would have trouble with drivers on that one. That's really more of a hobbyist thing. If you want a Mac, buy a Mac.
They pretty much are at this point.
Not really. In terms of units Macs are way behind iPad now. Apple could pull the plug on Intel anytime by EOL'ing several Mac products, and introduce a souped-up ARM MacBook Air with two multitouch LCDs in a laptop format.
They wouldn't because, well, there's no good reason to at this stage, but I'm sure the groundwork has been done.
Intel is not dependent on Apple and Apple is not dependent on Intel.
It's like friends with benefits.
Actually, it's the only way they can compete. Not much differentiation other than shiny knobs if you have no choice but to use the same OS as the competition. People are not willing to pay extra for shiny knobs.
Shiny knobs
Intel is blowing smoke as usual.
G
Statements that are against products that just happen to be made by one of their major clients seems pretty short sighted. There is such a thing as keeping one's mouth shut. Unless as I said in a previous post, they suspect their days as an Apple supplier are short ...
Intel's cheeks are chapped because Apple won't let them slap one of their damned "Intel Inside" stickers on the MBA chassis.
they can feel the future starting to slip away from them, to ARM/Apple.
Kidding
My windows pc died last week(haven't used it for months since I got my ipad)
Only use it maybe for iTunes synching
I tried to fix it but to no avail.
I might buy the Mac mini just so I can still have a desktop
This will be my first mac
Given the recent apparent rapid evolution of ARM processors, is ARM merely three generations from rivaling current Intel processors?
While Intel continues to advance their processors, are they doing so at a rate that will still exceed ARM processors five years from now?
Is software optimization not an important factor? As we know, iOS already provides limited versions of iLife (GarageBand, iMovie and iPhoto) and iWork (Keynote, Numbers, Pages). Software optimization is a key strategy for Apple.
If Apple were to switch to ARM processors across their entire line up, would Apple really be at a disadvantage in regards to software? I think not. iOS has far more software available than OS X although iOS software would need considerable effort to fully meet expectations.
Cheap and plentiful is what the PC business is all about.
Wealth transfer from customers to shareholders is what Apple is all about.
Open your local Best Buy flyer and you're likely to see some variation on this:
An entry level MacBook Pro pictured next to a totally tricked out PC notebook with the latest quad core i7, a fancy discrete video chip with tons of VRAM, double the RAM, double the storage, etc.
The kicker? In almost every case the high end PC carries a lower price tag than the entry level Mac.
I like OS X and the aluminum unibody case is very practical, but there's no denying that Mac buyers pay a huge premium for them.
You'll go through two or three of those PC notebooks before you re-sell your MacBook Pro. The end result is that you paid more to own crap.
In all the years I've enjoyed Mac Portables, I'm writing this on my second one; bought this MBP in 2006 and it's running strong. Previous to this I bought a small white MacBook, G3 and it was still running like new when I gave it away to a student to use.
The comparisons I have seen of ARM versus Intel indicates that Intel processors are an order of magnitude ahead of ARM processors.
Given the recent apparent rapid evolution of ARM processors, is ARM merely three generations from rivaling current Intel processors?
While Intel continues to advance their processors, are they doing so at a rate that will still exceed ARM processors five years from now?
Is software optimization not an important factor? As we know, iOS already provides limited versions of iLife (GarageBand, iMovie and iPhoto) and iWork (Keynote, Numbers, Pages). Software optimization is a key strategy for Apple.
If Apple were to switch to ARM processors across their entire line up, would Apple really be at a disadvantage in regards to software? I think not. iOS has far more software available than OS X although iOS software would need considerable effort to fully meet expectations.
The gap between ARM and Intel is still wide enough to be an issue. I don't expect Apple to switch their MacBooks over to ARM/iOS and lose the programs for the Mac and lose some horse power as well. ARM brings better power management to the table, but the tradeoffs are too great at the moment.
What Apple has done with iOS is interesting. They have optimized the OS to match the hardware CPU/GPU. This is one reason Apple doesn't need the hardware specs that Android needs. This optimization will continue to give Apple an edge in the ultra-portable device arena.
What will happen in the MBA type of laptop is still a bit of a mystery. My expectation is that Apple will stay with OSX and raise the bar for what people will want by improving the user experience; i.e. retina screens, friendlier touchpads, lighter weight, more indestructible liquid metal cases, etc.
To paraphrase Steve Jobs: If we can't make it better, we won't make it.
You'll go through two or three of those PC notebooks before you re-sell your MacBook Pro. The end result is that you paid more to own crap.
In all the years I've enjoyed Mac Portables, I'm writing this on my second one; bought this MBP in 2006 and it's running strong. Previous to this I bought a small white MacBook, G3 and it was still running like new when I gave it away to a student to use.
This is more crap. In fact the situation is the opposite of what you describe. Macs go out of date faster. XP is still supported for a huge range of software. Nothing from the PowerPC era is supported by anything current, and Apple is dropping quite a few older intel machines with Mountain Lion. If this is a PCs break more often thing, that applies if you're buying a bad one. I've owned mostly Macs. I've dealt with both quite a lot, and you're not even close to correct.
Now you can use a Mac past its supported life, but you can do that with a PC too. It's just really tiring to read the same ridiculous lies. If you're comparing remotely comparable price points, you have solid choices on either side. If you're going to compare a $300 netbook to a $1300 Mac, that's a poor point of reference.
Is software optimization not an important factor? As we know, iOS already provides limited versions of iLife (GarageBand, iMovie and iPhoto) and iWork (Keynote, Numbers, Pages). Software optimization is a key strategy for Apple.
It would be more a matter of other software. Many third party applications recently transitioned to 64 bit versions under OSX. By recently I mean 2010 to 2011. If there's a lack of software support, it would be from third party developers, and once again, their influence is under estimated.
If Apple were to switch to ARM processors across their entire line up, would Apple really be at a disadvantage in regards to software? I think not. iOS has far more software available than OS X although iOS software would need considerable effort to fully meet expectations.
Well they'd lose a bigger portion of their market than you might think if they did this today, and the cost reduction would be much less given that the way a soc would be designed for a macbook would be completely different from what is currently designed for the iphone and ipad. It would also have a lag period in terms of software. At the highly demanding end that could be a year or two. Now the short sighted opinion is that they could ditch this, but it closes a lot of doors for mass adoption that were opened by the success of the ipad and iphone.
Edit: I'm trying to figure out the point of this. Are you suggesting they do this for better hardware control or to control costs? Here's my opinion. I don't think they'd do such a thing until relatively uninhibited applications are developed for IOS. Many of the software developers have been busy with IOS development, but given ram and cpu limitations, these aren't anywhere near as robust as their OSX counterparts. When that changes or is within a generation away, it "could" make more sense. Right now I think the catching up period would be too great. Right now the desire for this seems to be driven by ARM marketing kool-aid. It works exceptionally well on the low power end, but it's really pretty untested beyond that.
"and with an operating system that people have come to love over the years" - I think this is the same kind of "love" that sparks between a rape victim and her rapist, who tortured her over the years. She's locked in the basement, she can't run, so she gives up fighting. Looks like the kind of relationship between Windows and it's users.
"'Ultra' means pinnacle, and we wanted the Ultrabook to be the pinnacle of everything that users have come to expect from their computing device," the representatives said. "So we did extensive research into what users' expectations were for their mobile computing devices, and there were four things that really stood out."
1. Make it like an Apple.
2. Make it like an Apple.
3. Make it like an Apple.
4. Make it like an Apple.
The downside is Windows, obviously, but anyone who "loves" Windows deserves to be lumbered with it, frankly.
Cheap and plentiful is what the PC business is all about.
Wealth transfer from customers to shareholders is what Apple is all about.
Now wait a minute... the PC manufacturers have to answer to shareholders too. They are all in business to make money.
But that's starting to become an issue. Remember when both HP and Dell were toying around with the idea about getting out of the PC business?
That's because "cheap and plentiful" doesn't pay the bills. Well... it does... but just barely.
The PC manufactuers all make basically the same product... Windows PCs. And they are all in competition with each other...
They're slashing prices left and right... trying to make their "Windows PC" more attractive than the other guy's "Windows PC"
It's a bloodbath. They're all selling commodity items... and that's why their margins are so thin. I wouldn't say "cheap and plentiful" is any kind of business goal... and it's precisely the market Apple avoids.
Open your local Best Buy flyer and you're likely to see some variation on this:
An entry level MacBook Pro pictured next to a totally tricked out PC notebook with the latest quad core i7, a fancy discrete video chip with tons of VRAM, double the RAM, double the storage, etc.
The kicker? In almost every case the high end PC carries a lower price tag than the entry level Mac.
I like OS X and the aluminum unibody case is very practical, but there's no denying that Mac buyers pay a huge premium for them.
There's no doubt that you can get some amazing hardware for sometimes cheaper than a Mac. But since you're on a Mac-friendly website... you should know what Apple is all about.
Apple sells you a product with great hardware and software. OSX is their baby... as is iLife. They've also got iCloud and the Mac App Store... stuff you can't easily get anywhere else.
They want to sell you a total package... and they price it accordingly.
Everybody sells Windows laptops... while Apple is the only company who sells Macs. But they only charge what the market can bear.
We don't need to get into a line-item comparison between Windows laptops and MacBooks. But you're right... you can get some killer hardware for cheaper than a Mac.