Hard disks and Hybrids are out. SSD are in. 600 MB/s Read/Write @ $200 per TB.
Only on the boot drive. Putting my 50TB all on SSD would be rather unaffordable.
Most consumers don't need anywhere near 50TB. I'd be wiling to bet most have issues filling 1TB.
Most consumers don't know how to delete or are afraid to delete and if they watch videos will fill up their drive until their computer stops working....
Most consumers think a backup is nothing to worry about.... or they think a single copy somewhere in the cloud is all that is needed held by a company which if it fails only owes you a nice apology for the lost data.
Hard drives are not out, just more specialized in their usage than before. Even being more specialized, the hard drive market will be larger than the VR market probably up to and through 2020.....
I don't really care about Macbook, no matter how tempted I am. I just want a new iMac.
Saying that, these days the computer tech is a fast changing landscape compare to a decade ago, with every week a new component model is released: faster, bigger and more powerful. It is clear that Apple will not go for Spec battle, it's just not the profitable model for Apple to release six Macbook models every year just to stay ahead in the Spec arena while clearly the software itself does not require that. Apple however will still release new model of their laptop/desktop line with the strength of design and whatever current tech is the most stable in the market, just not as frequent.
The enthusiast GPU market is a small fraction of the overall computer industry (<5% overall) and the PC VR market is a small fraction of that (~0.5% overall). When things are important to people, they are vocal about them but businesses have a different perspective.
Conservative estimates for VR with Augmented Reality headsets included are 200 million users by 2020. Do some research and you'll figure it out that the future of immersion will be the next wave of computing for the consumer.
As has been pointed out by AMD, Vulkan is akin to Metal API where both cover the identical areas. So converting Vulkan [ask Unity and Epic] to Metal or Metal to Vulkan has only accelerated their ability to deliver greater and greater performance over OpenGL. DX12 will eventually lose to Vulkan even in the Windows world.
Thanks to marvin and mdriftmeyer for this info, something I didn't know!
Apple is missing an opportunity to produce "Pro" machines. There is no reason they can't make both consumer and pro machines, other than they don't want to be bothered. Just license OS X, it runs faster and better on other peoples hardware. I have been using Macs since 1987... and I am now forced to use Windoze because of performance, it is embarrassing. Not one computer with desktop class graphics.. and no i am not counting my 2013 Mac Pro, my 2013 hackintosh runs much faster and has upgradable graphics.
Producing high-end computers isn’t much of an opportunity these days.
So there’s just not much money to be made in high-end machines. I get it. Why should Apple bother with such a small market?
Yes... the high-end computer market is a small percentage of the overall computer market. But there's still plenty of money to be made despite it being a lower-volume market.
How many people here are dying for Apple to update the 15" Macbook Pro?
That's a $2000 laptop! It's firmly in the high-end of the computer market. Hell... even Apple's "entry-level" laptop starts at $900... and that's for an 11" model.
And we know Apple isn't selling these things at cost... so they must be making some money. Probably a lot of money.
So how can you say there isn't much money to be made in high-end machines? Most of Apple's machines ARE high-end machines.
What if... Just what if the future of Mac OS is radically different...
Think ARM based CPU with integrated AMD or Imagination GPU and new flash optimized APFS file system etc...
The iMac becomes a 27" iPad like panel hooked on its stand and powered by a USB-C connector...
Heck... Apple could make a play for the Enterprise with scalable ARM based servers designed for internal or external clouds running a new web platform based on Foundation DB and an advanced WebObjects programmable in Swift...
Stay Tuned. Time will tell.
I still think a Hybrid will come first.
Aseries system processor handles Apple stock apps and background data syncing and notifications. Include TouchID security and LTE data only. Smaller Intel x86 processor is reserved for active applications processing. Light loads and iOS cross-over apps run on only Aseries leaving the Intel Core processor dedicated to heavy load and lagacy apps.
First machines will use the Aseries fabed by intel and Intel lte modems. Intel will use Apple as a test ground and market leader to then sell a general release version.
Marvin said: When you look through VR goggles, your eyes are focused in the middle so they can render the outer parts at a lower resolution
But I can MOVE my eyes. This assumption is why 3D movies look garbage unless you look at the center of the frame. Fortunately that madness died out. If VR is to take hold (can’t imagine it will), they’ll have to do quite a bit more… right.
Here’s a fairly humanized assessment of the situation that I like.
And his follow-up after trying many of the hardware and software options.
^ I thought I was the only one that had that problem. I went to see a blockbuster movie in 3D and all I could see was multiple layers....and it took me half the movie to adjust to it.
What if... Just what if the future of Mac OS is radically different...
Think ARM based CPU with integrated AMD or Imagination GPU and new flash optimized APFS file system etc...
The iMac becomes a 27" iPad like panel hooked on its stand and powered by a USB-C connector...
Heck... Apple could make a play for the Enterprise with scalable ARM based servers designed for internal or external clouds running a new web platform based on Foundation DB and an advanced WebObjects programmable in Swift...
Stay Tuned. Time will tell.
I still think a Hybrid will come first.
Aseries system processor handles Apple stock apps and background data syncing and notifications. Include TouchID security and LTE data only. Smaller Intel x86 processor is reserved for active applications processing. Light loads and iOS cross-over apps run on only Aseries leaving the Intel Core processor dedicated to heavy load and lagacy apps.
First machines will use the Aseries fabed by intel and Intel lte modems. Intel will use Apple as a test ground and market leader to then sell a general release version.
I don't expect any hybrids, but they won't introduce ARM laptops until it is more or less completely transparent to the end-user. The compiler technology currently goes through a generic assembly language that is common to all processors then a specific binary version of the application is generated. Moving from one processor to the other is relatively easy. They just have to make the compiler package a generic bitcode that is installable on all processors and the last step done locally (for non-app store applications) and the app store generate and install ARM applications for ARM computers and Intel applications for Intel based computers. Once all that is in place then anyone that does not rely on vmware fusion running other operating systems would not have to know if their computer is ARM or Intel. At that point there is little risk of market confusion by introducing computers running multiple architectures and will make it rather easy to introduce an ARM based Macbook -- while still having high end Intel based computers.
What if... Just what if the future of Mac OS is radically different...
Think ARM based CPU with integrated AMD or Imagination GPU and new flash optimized APFS file system etc...
The iMac becomes a 27" iPad like panel hooked on its stand and powered by a USB-C connector...
Heck... Apple could make a play for the Enterprise with scalable ARM based servers designed for internal or external clouds running a new web platform based on Foundation DB and an advanced WebObjects programmable in Swift...
Stay Tuned. Time will tell.
I still think a Hybrid will come first.
Aseries system processor handles Apple stock apps and background data syncing and notifications. Include TouchID security and LTE data only. Smaller Intel x86 processor is reserved for active applications processing. Light loads and iOS cross-over apps run on only Aseries leaving the Intel Core processor dedicated to heavy load and lagacy apps.
First machines will use the Aseries fabed by intel and Intel lte modems. Intel will use Apple as a test ground and market leader to then sell a general release version.
I don't expect any hybrids, but they won't introduce ARM laptops until it is more or less completely transparent to the end-user. The compiler technology currently goes through a generic assembly language that is common to all processors then a specific binary version of the application is generated. Moving from one processor to the other is relatively easy. They just have to make the compiler package a generic bitcode that is installable on all processors and the last step done locally (for non-app store applications) and the app store generate and install ARM applications for ARM computers and Intel applications for Intel based computers. Once all that is in place then anyone that does not rely on vmware fusion running other operating systems would not have to know if their computer is ARM or Intel. At that point there is little risk of market confusion by introducing computers running multiple architectures and will make it rather easy to introduce an ARM based Macbook -- while still having high end Intel based computers.
Problem I see is some work loads are always going to need as much single core power you can throw at them. Dual-core is ok for them to sidelining the system and keeping it out of the way but the two cores aren't matched. To me these are the professional workflows that tend to fall of old software people keep around for reasons. Even when multi-threading is good it still works better with as large core a possible being thrown at it.
ARM and good code just aren't going to bring enough grunt anytime in the next decade to be a professional laptop. The best hope is a big/little design to really get the best balance of both mobile and fixed computing.
]Problem I see is some work loads are always going to need as much single core power you can throw at them. Dual-core is ok for them to sidelining the system and keeping it out of the way but the two cores aren't matched. To me these are the professional workflows that tend to fall of old software people keep around for reasons. Even when multi-threading is good it still works better with as large core a possible being thrown at it.
ARM and good code just aren't going to bring enough grunt anytime in the next decade to be a professional laptop. The best hope is a big/little design to really get the best balance of both mobile and fixed computing.
Most of the modern "power" intensive applications have long ago been updated to take advantage of multiple cores. It is the smaller applications that tend to be bound by single core performance. The "old software" that people keep around for "reasons" were built back in an era when the single core performance was much less than today (Core 2 duo days) and the generational shift between that processor to the following generation was a rather large leap in processing power - this decade has mostly been just small incremental increases. This old software would have had to deal with much more limited resources and much more focused -- thus the single core performance for these old applications should be more than sufficient (the ARM in the iPad is more powerful than the Core 2 duo days). Apple has actually done a fantastic job on single core performance for their mobile ARM processors that are designed to operate in a rather restrictive thermal environment (without fans)....
Now if you remove the thermal constraints that the ARM currently operates - and I have no doubt that you can design an ARM that is much more powerful. The ARM processor that you are thinking about are typically constrained to 5watts or less with no fan thermal constraints in a very small package.... the instruction/compatibility set is not inherently limited. The Macbook Pro laptops range from 17 watt processors up to 45 watt processors with fans to vent excess heat.
The thing is that probably 90% of users running modern hardware (non-gamers) run their computers with CPUs idling 80 - 90% of the time. Most of the performance bottleneck had been disk/memory bound but those days are for the most part long gone.
My 2015 Macbook (second computer) is loaded with development software, VMWare running Linux with an Oracle Enterprise database server.... and even with all that stuff running, the Oracle database is relatively snappy to query against using Java or Scala based application code (or SQL Developer). It's limitations are that when running Handbrake to re-encode video it takes 3.5 times as long to encode as my 8-core Mac Pro from 2008.... but then I rarely do something like that. The current A9X used in the iPad is actually more powerful than that processor (within similar thermal constraints).
It is not as much an ARM CPU limitation inherently - it is a the boundaries that the current mobile ARM processors are designed to operate within.... I have no doubt Apple has the expertise if they wanted to design powerful ARM processors (unbounded by the current thermal or power constraints).
I really wish Apple was seriously aggressive in pushing GPU performance, at least as an option. I'd be willing to pay 50% more for a mac with proper graphics.
Opinion: Laptops are for portability. Most applications for this (not all but most) do not need dedicated graphics options. There are some applications where you need a laptop and powerful graphics performance but that is a limited market. The focus needs to be on battery life and creating cooler fan less devices to eliminate noise. What are some other perspectives on this?
Opinion: Laptops are for portability. Most applications for this (not all but most) do not need dedicated graphics options. There are some applications where you need a laptop and powerful graphics performance but that is a limited market. The focus needs to be on battery life and creating cooler fan less devices to eliminate noise. What are some other perspectives on this?
Ideally they would focus on reasonable CPU power -- within the target audience (Macbook Pro top of line would be a quad core of reasonable power - similar to today) but would rely and give additional options using the Thunderbolt 3 port. (i.e. external graphics - either in an external case or within a thunderbolt monitor). Most of the people using power graphics are using it at their desk at home or at work....
It would be nice if they made a high end mac mini or a more consumer model mac pro -- there is a missing piece in there somewhere (I despise having a computer built into the monitor - since the monitor is usually the first component to go).
In multicore the 2015 MBP benches 14693 and the 2012 benches 12702.
Single core the 2015 MBP benches 3877 benches 3271.
Sticking with Haswell for the 2015's doesn't mean that Intel performance didn't increase...just that Apple decided not to go Broadwell.
My guess on the GPU front that Apple's approach will be the rumored monitor with a GPU inside instead of a GPU dock or more powerful discrete GPUs in the MBP.
I thought we were in the "Post-Desktop" and "Post-Laptop" age and iPads were supposed to replace them...
We aren't, that was just marketing propaganda and fanboyism.
nonsense, that's just your ignorance for what words mean. "post" means after, not replace. we are indeed I'm a post-PC era, which means after the PC.
only trolls and FUD dispensers try to pretend mobile devices were claimed to have replaced PCs. we call that a strawman. nice job taking it down! hit it again! thwack thwack! yeah!
i'm going to miss os x which is going to be named mac os sierra, im going to miss the user interface the simplicity steve jobs era's influenced thats left in it, but not the current buggy crashy os
hmm yeah I can't remember the last time any of my three macs crashed, so I'm gonna call BS on your two posts (of your entire three post history) complaining about OS X crashing.
Conservative estimates for VR with Augmented Reality headsets included are 200 million users by 2020. Do some research and you'll figure it out that the future of immersion will be the next wave of computing for the consumer.
As has been pointed out by AMD, Vulkan is akin to Metal API where both cover the identical areas. So converting Vulkan [ask Unity and Epic] to Metal or Metal to Vulkan has only accelerated their ability to deliver greater and greater performance over OpenGL. DX12 will eventually lose to Vulkan even in the Windows world.
I wouldn't call 200 million units in 4 years a conservative estimate, that's the entire PC and next-gen console gaming market and $120-160b in revenue. Pretty optimistic in light of initial sales volumes ~100-200k. Immersive computing is going to be very impressive and will be a compelling purchase but I don't see it appealing to a mass audience in the near-term. There will have to be a lot more good content produced for it. I could see it replacing some physical screens. There would be no need to buy a 100" TV for example, you just put the goggles on you can have a 200" screen. The technology needs time to develop though and prices have to come down a lot because each person would need a pair of goggles.
Tallest Skil said: But I can MOVE my eyes. This assumption is why 3D movies look garbage unless you look at the center of the frame. Fortunately that madness died out. If VR is to take hold (can’t imagine it will), they’ll have to do quite a bit more… right.
3D movies are different because the screen is much further away from your eyes. They aren't shutting off the periphery of the display, just lowering the quality. Single-pass stereo makes no difference to the quality.
Michael Scrip said: how can you say there isn't much money to be made in high-end machines? Most of Apple's machines ARE high-end machines.
If you divide Apple's Mac revenue by their units, the average selling price of their machines is ~$1200. Most of the models Apple sells are the entry level notebooks (Air and Macbook). Apple often mentions laptops like the Macbook driving Mac sales at earnings releases. Of course there's money to be made selling high priced machines otherwise Apple wouldn't bother with those price points but they are already targeting the widest audience with mid-range options. There's very little additional money to be made by designing machines for the very small enthusiast market. The wider audience for GPUs isn't going to be disappointed with the upcoming Mac lineup because most games and computing software will run very well:
Comments
Most consumers don't need anywhere near 50TB. I'd be wiling to bet most have issues filling 1TB.
Most consumers think a backup is nothing to worry about.... or they think a single copy somewhere in the cloud is all that is needed held by a company which if it fails only owes you a nice apology for the lost data.
Hard drives are not out, just more specialized in their usage than before. Even being more specialized, the hard drive market will be larger than the VR market probably up to and through 2020.....
Saying that, these days the computer tech is a fast changing landscape compare to a decade ago, with every week a new component model is released: faster, bigger and more powerful. It is clear that Apple will not go for Spec battle, it's just not the profitable model for Apple to release six Macbook models every year just to stay ahead in the Spec arena while clearly the software itself does not require that. Apple however will still release new model of their laptop/desktop line with the strength of design and whatever current tech is the most stable in the market, just not as frequent.
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/thewolfe/the-wolfe-supercharge-your-laptop?ref=category_recommended
How many people here are dying for Apple to update the 15" Macbook Pro?
That's a $2000 laptop! It's firmly in the high-end of the computer market. Hell... even Apple's "entry-level" laptop starts at $900... and that's for an 11" model.
And we know Apple isn't selling these things at cost... so they must be making some money. Probably a lot of money.
So how can you say there isn't much money to be made in high-end machines? Most of Apple's machines ARE high-end machines.
Aseries system processor handles Apple stock apps and background data syncing and notifications. Include TouchID security and LTE data only. Smaller Intel x86 processor is reserved for active applications processing. Light loads and iOS cross-over apps run on only Aseries leaving the Intel Core processor dedicated to heavy load and lagacy apps.
First machines will use the Aseries fabed by intel and Intel lte modems. Intel will use Apple as a test ground and market leader to then sell a general release version.
Here’s a fairly humanized assessment of the situation that I like.
And his follow-up after trying many of the hardware and software options.
ARM and good code just aren't going to bring enough grunt anytime in the next decade to be a professional laptop. The best hope is a big/little design to really get the best balance of both mobile and fixed computing.
Now if you remove the thermal constraints that the ARM currently operates - and I have no doubt that you can design an ARM that is much more powerful. The ARM processor that you are thinking about are typically constrained to 5watts or less with no fan thermal constraints in a very small package.... the instruction/compatibility set is not inherently limited. The Macbook Pro laptops range from 17 watt processors up to 45 watt processors with fans to vent excess heat.
The thing is that probably 90% of users running modern hardware (non-gamers) run their computers with CPUs idling 80 - 90% of the time. Most of the performance bottleneck had been disk/memory bound but those days are for the most part long gone.
My 2015 Macbook (second computer) is loaded with development software, VMWare running Linux with an Oracle Enterprise database server.... and even with all that stuff running, the Oracle database is relatively snappy to query against using Java or Scala based application code (or SQL Developer). It's limitations are that when running Handbrake to re-encode video it takes 3.5 times as long to encode as my 8-core Mac Pro from 2008.... but then I rarely do something like that. The current A9X used in the iPad is actually more powerful than that processor (within similar thermal constraints).
It is not as much an ARM CPU limitation inherently - it is a the boundaries that the current mobile ARM processors are designed to operate within.... I have no doubt Apple has the expertise if they wanted to design powerful ARM processors (unbounded by the current thermal or power constraints).
Ideally they would focus on reasonable CPU power -- within the target audience (Macbook Pro top of line would be a quad core of reasonable power - similar to today) but would rely and give additional options using the Thunderbolt 3 port. (i.e. external graphics - either in an external case or within a thunderbolt monitor). Most of the people using power graphics are using it at their desk at home or at work....
It would be nice if they made a high end mac mini or a more consumer model mac pro -- there is a missing piece in there somewhere (I despise having a computer built into the monitor - since the monitor is usually the first component to go).
Single core the 2015 MBP benches 3877 benches 3271.
Sticking with Haswell for the 2015's doesn't mean that Intel performance didn't increase...just that Apple decided not to go Broadwell.
My guess on the GPU front that Apple's approach will be the rumored monitor with a GPU inside instead of a GPU dock or more powerful discrete GPUs in the MBP.
only trolls and FUD dispensers try to pretend mobile devices were claimed to have replaced PCs. we call that a strawman. nice job taking it down! hit it again! thwack thwack! yeah!
apple's pro customers are a fraction of their consumer customers. if you expect them to be considered equal, prepare for a lifetime of disappointment.
3D movies are different because the screen is much further away from your eyes. They aren't shutting off the periphery of the display, just lowering the quality. Single-pass stereo makes no difference to the quality.
If you divide Apple's Mac revenue by their units, the average selling price of their machines is ~$1200. Most of the models Apple sells are the entry level notebooks (Air and Macbook). Apple often mentions laptops like the Macbook driving Mac sales at earnings releases. Of course there's money to be made selling high priced machines otherwise Apple wouldn't bother with those price points but they are already targeting the widest audience with mid-range options. There's very little additional money to be made by designing machines for the very small enthusiast market. The wider audience for GPUs isn't going to be disappointed with the upcoming Mac lineup because most games and computing software will run very well:
http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-GTX-970M.126694.0.html
The majority of gamers are on mid-range machines (consoles and mid-range PCs).