Any billionaires out there care to pickup where Apple left off? You know, pushing the envelope of tech, getting access to chips other's didn't. Elegant design, at a somewhat steep but fair price. Pro level creative software solutions with the hardware power to match. Everything about apple now is the opposite.
All of this hand-wringing (and loss of pro users) is the result of Apple's dependence on Intel. Intel's schedule and long-term goals are independent of Apple's. No more exclusivity deals. In the long term, Apple could follow several radically different processor strategies:
1. Stay with Intel and suffer
No first-adopter exclusivity deals for new processors means that Apple will never be able to claim any performance advantage over Wintel PCs. Lower volumes than most other computer makers means that Apple does not benefit from high-volume economy-of-scale.
Worst of all, Apple is totally dependent on Intel's good will. Apple needs Intel more than Intel needs Apple. The result? A deal almost as bad as the Motorola/IBM years (1994-2006). Apple typically tries to control their own destiny by signing multiple suppliers for components, or by designing custom parts (Ax SoCs for example). Not going to happen with Intel, except for a possible Ax chip deal.
Pros: Apple never falls behind the rest of the PC world because they get the same chips. Cons: Apple never gets ahead of the rest of the PC world because they get the same chips. Net: unhappy relationship in a legacy market.
2. Transition Macs to Ax RISC architecture
I used to think that some day Apple would unify iOS and OS X. And that all Apple devices would run on a variant of their ARM-based Ax architecture. Ax chip speeds are still increasing rapidly every year, and the iOS 64-bit transition happened years ago. Seamlessly.
But no. Switching Macs to RISC would be a terrible idea. Sure, it could be done. Apple has made several bet-the-farm Mac processor transitions over the decades. 68K -> RISC. RISC -> x86. All just as seamlessly as the iOS 64-bit transition.
Still a terrible idea. Look at what happened when Microsoft tried to mash up Windows and Windows Phone. Worst of both worlds. Do I mouse-click or tap? What happened to the (insert favorite feature here)? iOS users are happy with very rapid advancement. OS X / macOS users like things to stay as they are, plus or minus a few cosmetic tweaks here and there for freshness' sake. Try to mash up iOS and macOS and there will be a million pissed-off users storming The Mothership with flaming USB pitchforks.
Even worse - Microsoft and Adobe and other "Pro" app publishers might not ever port their apps to the iOS / macOS hybrid. A lot of work for such a small market. It took a decade for Adobe to migrate their bloatware suites from Mac OS 9 to OS X. They might never port their bloatware to a unified iOS / macOS. (And yeah. Microsoft would never port Windows to the hybrid OS, so goodbye suckers who run Windows on Macs.)
Pros: lower SoC cost with no Intel tax, possible reduction in OS and apple App code base. Cons: loss of all "Pro" users, loss of many traditionalist consumer-level users, and wouldn't run Windows. Net: slight benefit in component costs, horrendous cost in good will and user base.
3. Buy AMD and make custom x86-based CPUs
Apple did their own custom ARM architecture to great effect. Transitioned it to 64-bit long before the rest of the ARM community, and keeps on ramping up the speed every year. So could they do the same with the AMD x86 CPUs? Yes and no.
First, AMD's market cap is less than $6 billion. Not cheap, but not a stretch at all. Apple could easily buy AMD. Second, Apple evidently has the hardware expertise to create a custom x86 architecture optimized for macOS. Third, Apple could and would lower their long-term CPU costs by not paying low-volume Intel boutique prices. (And reducing complexity of the instruction set on silicon could mean smaller dies and lower material costs.)
But, fourth, there will always be the issue of legacy "Pro" apps (and Windows-on-Mac.) Cut out too many of the bizarre, legacy instructions on the custom silicon and those apps won't run any more. Sure, macOS and its apps are RISC-based, but Adobe and Microsoft apps are not. We have to assume that those apps can and will use any of the freaky instructions that Intel's compilers provide. So Apple would be stuck with stamping out CPUs that support the full x86 architecture. The only advantage would be avoiding low-volume boutique Intel pricing.
Pros: vertical integration for lower CPU cost. Cons: same as for #2 (losing Pro users, pissing off all other users). Net: too much work for such a small benefit in a legacy market.
So yeah. Maybe the current Intel relationship is the least terrible option. Let the legacy Mac market taper off naturally instead of trying to inject ARM technology into it. Don't bother trying to lower component costs by buying ARM and making custom chips for Mac.
Were you in the boardroom? This is about as accurate as it could be stated.
I am a pro user since 2000 and i believe Apple's story became unbelievably self centered, egostistical, no longer "havin a dream" to create greatest products but continuing the milking process of people who wants to show off. Well, i can not believe that i say this (even to my self) but with this non-professional attitude, i am out of Apple's citizenship. What is this? Compare Dell or HP to a Mac Pro? I mean is this a joke? Compare Alienware to Mac Book Pro?
I am missing the days we had Final Cut and FC Library, Shake.. even QT Pro, even Pages 9. Now we have bunch of non sense crApple. They are supposedly updated but for any pro user they were seriously downgraded. And the sad part is Adobe CS not great either for Professional updates. What, microsoft? God no. Google? Nope, definitely not. God help us.
And we pros loved Apple, we made Apple what it is. Now, Apple lost us!
Apple lost you because the pro market changed. You don't need expensive tools and archaic UI to produce professional results. You can get what you need from an iPad for most things and if you can't, you probably needed a loaded PC to do a few things that the Pro Macs never would do anyway. Trust me, I was a pro Mac user for years when non-linear editing took off. I had a $20k rig but now I'm shooting and editing 4K same day with great results using FCPX. I'm still looking forward to using my iPad Pro in conjunction with FCPX and one day, completely in place of it.
The changes in Mac hardware began under Steve. I think most people here have read enough about him to know he was not sentimental about Apple products. If something had served it's function, made the profits and was no longer valid he would dump it. I think he was headed that direction with Macs. It was under Steve that the Mac Pros languished almost unchanged for years. Steve killed the XServe and Xserve RAID which also had declined under his tenure. I think the reason they languished is that it was easy for him to see that things were changing in that market segment like Wigby said above.
according this article and quote, Jobs' reason for canning the server was much simpler -- "nobody was buying them".
It just dawned on me. The fact every version of OS X for 5 years prior to the Intel OS X was also secretly in-house Intel then if Apple would only let those Betas out we enthusiasts could run them all in VMWare or Parallels today. I currently have to dig out my Mac Plus SE and G3 Mac. I'd love to just have everything available on my new Mac Pro. My wife thinks I'm nuts even wanting the old OSs, but hey, it floats my boat.
I am a pro user since 2000 and i believe Apple's story became unbelievably self centered, egostistical, no longer "havin a dream" to create greatest products but continuing the milking process of people who wants to show off. Well, i can not believe that i say this (even to my self) but with this non-professional attitude, i am out of Apple's citizenship. What is this? Compare Dell or HP to a Mac Pro? I mean is this a joke? Compare Alienware to Mac Book Pro?
I am missing the days we had Final Cut and FC Library, Shake.. even QT Pro, even Pages 9. Now we have bunch of non sense crApple. They are supposedly updated but for any pro user they were seriously downgraded. And the sad part is Adobe CS not great either for Professional updates. What, microsoft? God no. Google? Nope, definitely not. God help us.
And we pros loved Apple, we made Apple what it is. Now, Apple lost us!
I have to agree with lots you say – although I don't want to agree. I once thought Pages is a superior product. Even more so with Keynote. Both still are my primary tools in this sector. But I can't believe how few progress there is with both programs. And how many bugs these have. It doesn't seem to be the most complicated software to write.
that's funny. I bet you don't write software. amirite? anyway, considering the feature parity between Mac, iOS, and web*, yes, it is complicated. but it's worth it because I love that I can work on my files on any machine I'm on, anywhere. complicated.
*especially web. the underlying foundations of web weren't designed for apps, they were designed for marking up documents. getting web apps to have a UI and UX that's on parity with desktop apps is no easy feat. it's hard.
No first-adopter exclusivity deals for new processors means that Apple will never be able to claim any performance advantage over Wintel PCs. Lower volumes than most other computer makers means that Apple does not benefit from high-volume economy-of-scale.
Worst of all, Apple is totally dependent on Intel's good will. Apple needs Intel more than Intel needs Apple. The result? A deal almost as bad as the Motorola/IBM years (1994-2006). Apple typically tries to control their own destiny by signing multiple suppliers for components, or by designing custom parts (Ax SoCs for example). Not going to happen with Intel, except for a possible Ax chip deal.
Pros: Apple never falls behind the rest of the PC world because they get the same chips. Cons: Apple never gets ahead of the rest of the PC world because they get the same chips. Net: unhappy relationship in a legacy market.
Apple actually has more power now with Intel then it has since it transitioned -- but there is a question on whether they would want to play the cards in regards to trading business in their strongest business for some advantage in there legacy business. Intel became an approved ARM fabrication plant mostly because of the business they want with regards to iPhone along with future modem integration.... this might give Apple some leverage if they wanted to play it in taking the Intel base chip design and developing a custom version of it all fabricated in house at Intel.
I used to think that some day Apple would unify iOS and OS X. And that all Apple devices would run on a variant of their ARM-based Ax architecture. Ax chip speeds are still increasing rapidly every year, and the iOS 64-bit transition happened years ago. Seamlessly.
But no. Switching Macs to RISC would be a terrible idea. Sure, it could be done. Apple has made several bet-the-farm Mac processor transitions over the decades. 68K -> RISC. RISC -> x86. All just as seamlessly as the iOS 64-bit transition.
Still a terrible idea. Look at what happened when Microsoft tried to mash up Windows and Windows Phone. Worst of both worlds. Do I mouse-click or tap? What happened to the (insert favorite feature here)? iOS users are happy with very rapid advancement. OS X / macOS users like things to stay as they are, plus or minus a few cosmetic tweaks here and there for freshness' sake. Try to mash up iOS and macOS and there will be a million pissed-off users storming The Mothership with flaming USB pitchforks.
Even worse - Microsoft and Adobe and other "Pro" app publishers might not ever port their apps to the iOS / macOS hybrid. A lot of work for such a small market. It took a decade for Adobe to migrate their bloatware suites from Mac OS 9 to OS X. They might never port their bloatware to a unified iOS / macOS. (And yeah. Microsoft would never port Windows to the hybrid OS, so goodbye suckers who run Windows on Macs.)
Pros: lower SoC cost with no Intel tax, possible reduction in OS and apple App code base. Cons: loss of all "Pro" users, loss of many traditionalist consumer-level users, and wouldn't run Windows. Net: slight benefit in component costs, horrendous cost in good will and user base.
Apple is in a better position now with regards to processor independence than they were at any time in their past. Since Apple moved their compiler technology to clang and LLVM, their compiler produces LLVM from which is translated into ARM code or Intel code.... The submission of bitcode to the App Store allows the App Store to produce an ARM binary or an Intel binary at the time of download..... Apple would also have to change the installation process to bundle bitcode in a package installation procedure which is translated from bitcode (LLVM) to binary code at installation time. The operating system and UI APIs would be the same across different processor architectures. Once all these pieces are in place -- it would not matter the processor to "most users" (with the exception of those who rely on VMWare, Bootcamp/Windows). They could in fact have Macs that run from an ARM based laptop up to a Power 9 supercomputer (if they added in Power LLVM options to the Mac compiler technology) all running macOS and all having all modern applications available.
Apple did their own custom ARM architecture to great effect. Transitioned it to 64-bit long before the rest of the ARM community, and keeps on ramping up the speed every year. So could they do the same with the AMD x86 CPUs? Yes and no.
First, AMD's market cap is less than $6 billion. Not cheap, but not a stretch at all. Apple could easily buy AMD. Second, Apple evidently has the hardware expertise to create a custom x86 architecture optimized for macOS. Third, Apple could and would lower their long-term CPU costs by not paying low-volume Intel boutique prices. (And reducing complexity of the instruction set on silicon could mean smaller dies and lower material costs.)
But, fourth, there will always be the issue of legacy "Pro" apps (and Windows-on-Mac.) Cut out too many of the bizarre, legacy instructions on the custom silicon and those apps won't run any more. Sure, macOS and its apps are RISC-based, but Adobe and Microsoft apps are not. We have to assume that those apps can and will use any of the freaky instructions that Intel's compilers provide. So Apple would be stuck with stamping out CPUs that support the full x86 architecture. The only advantage would be avoiding low-volume boutique Intel pricing.
Pros: vertical integration for lower CPU cost. Cons: same as for #2 (losing Pro users, pissing off all other users). Net: too much work for such a small benefit in a legacy market.
Yes, they could by AMD - but the cross-license agreement does not survive a corporate takeover without renegotiation with Intel. The only way to customize x86 CPUs is at Intel fabrication facilities.
The changes in Mac hardware began under Steve. I think most people here have read enough about him to know he was not sentimental about Apple products. If something had served it's function, made the profits and was no longer valid he would dump it. I think he was headed that direction with Macs. It was under Steve that the Mac Pros languished almost unchanged for years. Steve killed the XServe and Xserve RAID which also had declined under his tenure. I think the reason they languished is that it was easy for him to see that things were changing in that market segment like Wigby said above.
according this article and quote, Jobs' reason for canning the server was much simpler -- "nobody was buying them".
They didn't sell because they were half heartedly supported and marketed enough so that only Mac faithfuls were in the least interested, and even then. I would say say the servers could have been great if done well but they never were going to fit under Apple's hardware manufacture, release and promotion philosophy. It's a different market, similar to pro audio and pro imaging, and Jobs was being forward thinking to when he didn't want to be the tail wagged by those dogs.
If it's true that Kaby Lake doesn't require an Alpine Ridge controller for Thunderbolt 3, that's very interesting for a 12" MacBook update and possibly the MacBook Air -- which could happen any day now.
As for the wildly anticipated MacBook Pro, just upgrading them to Skylake this year is a nice improvement, especially the 15" which is still rocking Haswell. There should be ample space for Alpine Ridge to still have Thunderbolt 3. Other than a slight ~10% boost, Kaby Lake's main improvements are in the fixed-function encode/decode hardware on the GPU. Not a big loss if there is an AMD Polaris GPU onboard with the same functionality.
The slow trickle of Intel CPUs certainly complicates matters for Apple's engineers, but I'm confident in their abilities to bring out a great new Mac lineup.
Apple lost you because the pro market changed. You don't need expensive tools and archaic UI to produce professional results. You can get what you need from an iPad for most things and if you can't, you probably needed a loaded PC to do a few things that the Pro Macs never would do anyway. Trust me, I was a pro Mac user for years when non-linear editing took off. I had a $20k rig but now I'm shooting and editing 4K same day with great results using FCPX. I'm still looking forward to using my iPad Pro in conjunction with FCPX and one day, completely in place of it.
That's all valid but I think it's only part of the equation. Some people make a big deal about specs compared to PCs when talking about what the pros need that Apple is lacking in providing but in my experience it's equally attributable to their philosophy of information about release dates and specs being limited to rumors and conjecture. If you're running a business that depends on computers doing heavy lifting it's been hard to plan without either buying last year's models which are barely an upgrade from what you currently use, or waiting months for an announcement for a model that might not ship for another two months. Especially when dealing with a company that only has two possible models suitable for your plans and not three product lines with five models to choose from. It's not enough to dissuade a dyed in the wool OS X user/Windows hater, but for those who don't feel that way it can be the factor that causes a 100% Mac business to go 30%.
Naturally, Apple doesn't really care about that. It's not a loss it's just not what they're concentrating on while being 100% in the households of people in those businesses in phones, music and tablets.
Apple is bleeding Mac users, mostly from the content producing side from lack of updates because of the infrequent updates.
For me, this little bit of Mike's rumor-speculation-diatribe stood out as a model of clarity.
I'm not sure about the ratio of iOS devices to Macs sold, but I imagine Apple is merely following the money. Cashflow has a strange way of determining priorities. 'Bleeding Mac users' is obviously the price the company has decided to pay.
Any billionaires out there care to pickup where Apple left off? You know, pushing the envelope of tech, getting access to chips other's didn't. Elegant design, at a somewhat steep but fair price. Pro level creative software solutions with the hardware power to match. Everything about apple now is the opposite.
what complete and utter garbage your troll post is. Apple doesn't release some speed bumps and you haters cry like little girls nonstop. meanwhile, Apple Mac hardware is so effective and long-lived that pro developers like myself are still using a 2011 iMac and a 2014 rMBP. you don't need every speed bump. I doubt you even have a MP. you just want to cry and complain because you feel you're an entitled special snowflake.
if the hardship on your life is so much, why not do what Apple did? build a better machine in your garage and make billions of dollars. surely you represent a vast, untapped market of need? what are you waiting for? what's the hold up? it's easy, right?
The changes in Mac hardware began under Steve. I think most people here have read enough about him to know he was not sentimental about Apple products. If something had served it's function, made the profits and was no longer valid he would dump it. I think he was headed that direction with Macs. It was under Steve that the Mac Pros languished almost unchanged for years. Steve killed the XServe and Xserve RAID which also had declined under his tenure. I think the reason they languished is that it was easy for him to see that things were changing in that market segment like Wigby said above.
according this article and quote, Jobs' reason for canning the server was much simpler -- "nobody was buying them".
They didn't sell because they were half heartedly supported and marketed enough so that only Mac faithfuls were in the least interested, and even then. I would say say the servers could have been great if done well but they never were going to fit under Apple's hardware manufacture, release and promotion philosophy. It's a different market, similar to pro audio and pro imaging, and Jobs was being forward thinking to when he didn't want to be the tail wagged by those dogs.
so on the one hand we have an armchair CEO who says they only didn't sell because Apple wasn't trying hard enough. on the other hand we have Steve Jobs, an actual CEO for the actual company selling them who felt they didn't sell because there wasn't a market. hmm. yeah, I'm gonna go with Jobs' take.
Apple is bleeding Mac users, mostly from the content producing side from lack of updates because of the infrequent updates.
For me, this little bit of Mike's rumor-speculation-diatribe stood out as a model of clarity.
I'm not sure about the ratio of iOS devices to Macs sold, but I imagine Apple is merely following the money. Cashflow has a strange way of determining priorities. 'Bleeding Mac users' is obviously the price the company has decided to pay.
can you share your numbers? how many pro content producing users is Apple losing? who are we talking about here? because professional movie editors isn't a big slice of pie, so I'm curious. it would really help put this into perspective.
It just dawned on me. The fact every version of OS X for 5 years prior to the Intel OS X was also secretly in-house Intel then if Apple would only let those Betas out we enthusiasts could run them all in VMWare or Parallels today. I currently have to dig out my Mac Plus SE and G3 Mac. I'd love to just have everything available on my new Mac Pro. My wife thinks I'm nuts even wanting the old OSs, but hey, it floats my boat.
I still plug in my old G4 from time to time to take a stroll down OS 9 lane. And play some Deus Ex.
I am a pro user since 2000 and i believe Apple's story became unbelievably self centered, egostistical, no longer "havin a dream" to create greatest products but continuing the milking process of people who wants to show off. Well, i can not believe that i say this (even to my self) but with this non-professional attitude, i am out of Apple's citizenship. What is this? Compare Dell or HP to a Mac Pro? I mean is this a joke? Compare Alienware to Mac Book Pro?
I am missing the days we had Final Cut and FC Library, Shake.. even QT Pro, even Pages 9. Now we have bunch of non sense crApple. They are supposedly updated but for any pro user they were seriously downgraded. And the sad part is Adobe CS not great either for Professional updates. What, microsoft? God no. Google? Nope, definitely not. God help us.
And we pros loved Apple, we made Apple what it is. Now, Apple lost us!
I have to agree with lots you say – although I don't want to agree. I once thought Pages is a superior product. Even more so with Keynote. Both still are my primary tools in this sector. But I can't believe how few progress there is with both programs. And how many bugs these have. It doesn't seem to be the most complicated software to write.
that's funny. I bet you don't write software. amirite? anyway, considering the feature parity between Mac, iOS, and web*, yes, it is complicated. but it's worth it because I love that I can work on my files on any machine I'm on, anywhere. complicated.
*especially web. the underlying foundations of web weren't designed for apps, they were designed for marking up documents. getting web apps to have a UI and UX that's on parity with desktop apps is no easy feat. it's hard.
it is hard, yes. but you don't donwgrade the apps because to upgrade them is hard. I believe Apple is an American company and i believe what J.F.K stated is what this country truly stand for:
“We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard."
I know this is vastly un-popular around here but i lay all the lack of updates to the mac at Intel feet. The missed target last year meant apple would have to do a spec boost inside the same year they do a re-design. This is not something apple is willing to do. So if intel had hit the mark last year you would be on a more current gen macbook pro than you are now. Intel is still flagging when it comes to hitting targets with Kaby-lake. So apple can take the body blows of your displeasure now or they can apple people who just bought new hardware with more frequent updates and anger the long term customer base. I think apple is stuck between a rock and a hard place. Apple is on a very predictable upgrade cycle when it comes to chips. This only worked when Intel hit the mark on the delivery dates for apple and the moment you slide 60 to 90 days out side the window apple is done they move on to the next upgrade.
I am a pro user since 2000 and i believe Apple's story became unbelievably self centered, egostistical, no longer "havin a dream" to create greatest products but continuing the milking process of people who wants to show off. Well, i can not believe that i say this (even to my self) but with this non-professional attitude, i am out of Apple's citizenship. What is this? Compare Dell or HP to a Mac Pro? I mean is this a joke? Compare Alienware to Mac Book Pro?
I am missing the days we had Final Cut and FC Library, Shake.. even QT Pro, even Pages 9. Now we have bunch of non sense crApple. They are supposedly updated but for any pro user they were seriously downgraded. And the sad part is Adobe CS not great either for Professional updates. What, microsoft? God no. Google? Nope, definitely not. God help us.
And we pros loved Apple, we made Apple what it is. Now, Apple lost us!
Misdirected anger much? First, del and Hp are not any faster then the mac pro at all. The race for speed ended in 2012, when cpuS could no longer get any faster, and only chipset upgrades were remaining.
And why are you compering a gaming laptop to a desktop replacement?
Misinformed much
I just don't get why some people feel so compelled to tell other people what they need. Because you don't need CPU power doesn't mean the rest of the world doesn't need it. I've been on Mac since 84, I have built a fairly large business doing 3D renderings on Macs and in 30 years I have never seen the Mac line up in such despair. The term bleeding Pro mac users is an excellent description as I see it happening all around me.
First off, No, the speed race did not end in 2012. For Macs, it ended in 2010. the 12 core macs we purchased then are what we still use today. The 2013 MacPros were stripped of a whole processor so all they accomplished for people that needed CPU is to double the price and keep the performance the same at 12 cores. We bought one machine just to test it out and we were disappointed so we have waited for years with cash in hand. Now here we are 6 years later with the same performance level. So I can completely understand the frustration levels of pro users because I myself am beyond frustrated.
Where you are wrong is the race only stopped for Macs. The Xeon was upgraded twice over the past 3 years. Apple is stuck on providing generation 2 cpus that maxed out at 12 cores while HP and Dell are selling fourth generation dual 22 cores (44 cores total). Apple is not competing on price, they are not competing on performance, they are not competing on upgradability. Who in the world would buy a Mac Pro. I think Tim Cook is putting all his eggs in the phone basket and has no understanding of the Apple culture. Once he bleeds away all his loyal users all that will be left is another phone company. Just like the infallible Motorola and Nokia.
I totally agree. I owned the same Mac Pro.. Great points. Thank you.
Apple is bleeding Mac users, mostly from the content producing side from lack of updates because of the infrequent updates.
For me, this little bit of Mike's rumor-speculation-diatribe stood out as a model of clarity.
I'm not sure about the ratio of iOS devices to Macs sold, but I imagine Apple is merely following the money. Cashflow has a strange way of determining priorities. 'Bleeding Mac users' is obviously the price the company has decided to pay.
can you share your numbers? how many pro content producing users is Apple losing? who are we talking about here? because professional movie editors isn't a big slice of pie, so I'm curious. it would really help put this into perspective.
The top-line quote - "Apple is bleeding Mac users" - was not mine; it came from the article itself.
I'm not sure who Mike was talking about in this very general reference, but I am pretty convinced that whoever they are, they don't really matter much to Apple.
And, as I pointed out in my original response, I'm okay with that.
Apple is bleeding Mac users, mostly from the content producing side from lack of updates because of the infrequent updates.
For me, this little bit of Mike's rumor-speculation-diatribe stood out as a model of clarity.
I'm not sure about the ratio of iOS devices to Macs sold, but I imagine Apple is merely following the money. Cashflow has a strange way of determining priorities. 'Bleeding Mac users' is obviously the price the company has decided to pay.
can you share your numbers? how many pro content producing users is Apple losing? who are we talking about here? because professional movie editors isn't a big slice of pie, so I'm curious. it would really help put this into perspective.
The top-line quote - "Apple is bleeding Mac users" - was not mine; it came from the article itself.
I'm not sure who Mike was talking about in this very general reference, but I am pretty convinced that whoever they are, they don't really matter much to Apple.
And, as I pointed out in my original response, I'm okay with that.
Bleeding is an overstatement. Up until the last quarter or two the Mac sales have been showing growth were as the overall PC market has been in a longer decline. The overall decline is caused by a wider array of computing choices (PC, Phone, and tablet) which solve different peoples needs. There are many people who were using PCs because that was the only option they thought to easily check email and now social media but people that have that limited. Additionally, the rate of improvement in processor technology has slowed dramatically, and people are fine holding onto computers longer. Without the marketing and constant refreshing for refreshing's sake, there is a longer replacement cycle for the average user. The biggest improvement of late has been the rapid and ongoing improvement in persistent storage (SSD) -- which for me is the biggest selling point (and technology that allows for more bandwidth to these types of devices). People are holding off waiting for the refresh that is going to be fairly significant, but then after again it will go into a long holding pattern. Software is not driving the need for massive improvements in technology. Most people who are upgrading constantly are not doing it because of need -- though there are a few. Hard-core gaming (which is not a niche that Apple has shown much interest in) is one area where people upgrade to the bleeding edge technology, some video rendering but other than 4K video (which is not a big market) there is not much of anything else driving this need.
Comments
http://appleinsider.com/articles/10/11/08/alleged_steve_jobs_e_mail_says_hardly_anyone_was_buying_apples_xserves
that's funny. I bet you don't write software. amirite? anyway, considering the feature parity between Mac, iOS, and web*, yes, it is complicated. but it's worth it because I love that I can work on my files on any machine I'm on, anywhere. complicated.
*especially web. the underlying foundations of web weren't designed for apps, they were designed for marking up documents. getting web apps to have a UI and UX that's on parity with desktop apps is no easy feat. it's hard.
Apple actually has more power now with Intel then it has since it transitioned -- but there is a question on whether they would want to play the cards in regards to trading business in their strongest business for some advantage in there legacy business. Intel became an approved ARM fabrication plant mostly because of the business they want with regards to iPhone along with future modem integration.... this might give Apple some leverage if they wanted to play it in taking the Intel base chip design and developing a custom version of it all fabricated in house at Intel.
Apple is in a better position now with regards to processor independence than they were at any time in their past. Since Apple moved their compiler technology to clang and LLVM, their compiler produces LLVM from which is translated into ARM code or Intel code.... The submission of bitcode to the App Store allows the App Store to produce an ARM binary or an Intel binary at the time of download..... Apple would also have to change the installation process to bundle bitcode in a package installation procedure which is translated from bitcode (LLVM) to binary code at installation time. The operating system and UI APIs would be the same across different processor architectures. Once all these pieces are in place -- it would not matter the processor to "most users" (with the exception of those who rely on VMWare, Bootcamp/Windows). They could in fact have Macs that run from an ARM based laptop up to a Power 9 supercomputer (if they added in Power LLVM options to the Mac compiler technology) all running macOS and all having all modern applications available.
Yes, they could by AMD - but the cross-license agreement does not survive a corporate takeover without renegotiation with Intel. The only way to customize x86 CPUs is at Intel fabrication facilities.
They didn't sell because they were half heartedly supported and marketed enough so that only Mac faithfuls were in the least interested, and even then. I would say say the servers could have been great if done well but they never were going to fit under Apple's hardware manufacture, release and promotion philosophy. It's a different market, similar to pro audio and pro imaging, and Jobs was being forward thinking to when he didn't want to be the tail wagged by those dogs.
If it's true that Kaby Lake doesn't require an Alpine Ridge controller for Thunderbolt 3, that's very interesting for a 12" MacBook update and possibly the MacBook Air -- which could happen any day now.
As for the wildly anticipated MacBook Pro, just upgrading them to Skylake this year is a nice improvement, especially the 15" which is still rocking Haswell. There should be ample space for Alpine Ridge to still have Thunderbolt 3. Other than a slight ~10% boost, Kaby Lake's main improvements are in the fixed-function encode/decode hardware on the GPU. Not a big loss if there is an AMD Polaris GPU onboard with the same functionality.
The slow trickle of Intel CPUs certainly complicates matters for Apple's engineers, but I'm confident in their abilities to bring out a great new Mac lineup.
Naturally, Apple doesn't really care about that. It's not a loss it's just not what they're concentrating on while being 100% in the households of people in those businesses in phones, music and tablets.
For me, this little bit of Mike's rumor-speculation-diatribe stood out as a model of clarity.
I'm not sure about the ratio of iOS devices to Macs sold, but I imagine Apple is merely following the money. Cashflow has a strange way of determining priorities. 'Bleeding Mac users' is obviously the price the company has decided to pay.
if the hardship on your life is so much, why not do what Apple did? build a better machine in your garage and make billions of dollars. surely you represent a vast, untapped market of need? what are you waiting for? what's the hold up? it's easy, right?
so on the one hand we have an armchair CEO who says they only didn't sell because Apple wasn't trying hard enough. on the other hand we have Steve Jobs, an actual CEO for the actual company selling them who felt they didn't sell because there wasn't a market. hmm. yeah, I'm gonna go with Jobs' take.
“We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard."
Intel is hurting apple in this relationship
I'm not sure who Mike was talking about in this very general reference, but I am pretty convinced that whoever they are, they don't really matter much to Apple.
And, as I pointed out in my original response, I'm okay with that.