Everyone blaming Intel, yet it's Apple that insists on paper thin, fan-less laptop designs that defy physics on keeping them cool. The rest of us (Windows users) enjoy the latest and greatest chips and hardware and increasing performance with 8th and 9th gen chips. I'm fine with fans. They come on when needed, and are silent otherwise. I also like having the ability to remove a few screws and change / add more larger SSD's or memory.
10nm will be nice when it arrives, but I don't see it being Intel's fault that Apple cannot move forward in performance.
Apple doesn't design in a vacuum, and designs multi-year enclosures on promises from vendors. Like we said in the article, we know that Intel was asked about future thermal performance in 2015 and 2016. Intel was promising 10nm, and all the benefits, for early 2017, and we're also sure that some decisions were made regarding it vis a vis the enclosure in the design process.
Max Speed. Thin. Quiet. Pick two. Apple has picked thin and quiet, and has done so for very nearly a decade. It's great that you like the ability to "remove a few screws" and etc. I do as well, but the much, much larger customer base does not, and prefers thin and quiet. And, I'm sure that you see this drive for thin in the Windows market as well. The shift has been obvious for the last five years.
Right, but not having “max speed” are driven people nuts. Even so, H series chips are the highest options for laptops (well, except overclockers or desktop replacement laptops), and once you can properly cool them down, there shouldn’t be a difference in performance. This is the simple thing people always ignored about.
So, yes, I do think all three can be accomplished at the same time, although maybe not with the 8th gen (and probably true with 6th and 7th gen), it will certainly be true with their own architectures.
That is not the case for GPUs, but they’re always in mid-tier, which is very common for multimedia laptops.
I've been through the 6502-68K, 68K-PPC and PPC-Intel switches. If there is a switch to ARM, I'm out.
No bootcamp, no VM, no games at all, no professional apps, no drivers for anything.
Im sure that folks concerned with bootcamp and virtualization will mourn the switch, but those people are in the minority. Working at Apple retail for some years, we almost never had computers come in for repair with a bootcamp partition. Actually, I cant even recall one time. Now that's not definitive proof of anything, merely anecdotal. Even so, I think the majority of Mac users would trade bootcamp for faster performance through an optimized ARM CPU. I also believe the vast majority will trade virtulization for better battery life of an ARM CPU.
Regarding drivers, the big manufactures like BlackMagic or others will adapt and release. Again, a tiny handful of Mac users have ever installed a driver on their machine.
Adobe will for sure also release their suite and be featured by Tim on stage. Autodesk, Adobe and many other makers of Pro apps have spent years already making iOS (read ARM) versions of their products. It wont be a long time before everyone comes along.
It will for sure be a painful switch for some; but just like PPC > Intel; ADB > USB; USB A > USB C; we will adapt. And for large swaths of users all they will see is a super fast Mac with great battery life and a vibrant App store and never notice the difference.
Intel is not the culprit here. The real issue with that 5% hit is the problems with Mac. Now MacBook/Pro comes with unreliable keyboard, crappy webcam, display issues, T2 crash issues and many more and Apple is doing almost nothing to address these. Why someone with right mind will buy a machine with so many issues. Even if he/she gets Apple Care, after 3 years, the repair bill would be massive due to multiple failures. Lots of people are holding back for these reasons.
It's time for Apple to address these and bring "reliable" machine like previous years so that people want to buy again. Otherwise they will lose customers to PC.
Given that Intel was called out twice for impacting revenue, on a call where materially false statements are punishable by law, your hot take isn't relevant to the topic at hand.
There are certainly advantages to the Windows market of computers, but the reality is that relatively few actually capitalise on upgradeability and
This is so true. I do consumer level computer help as a sideline. I can't tell you the number of people I've come across who've asked for help buying a new computer because their old one is "too slow" when all it really needed to be useful again was more memory, a faster hard drive (or even cleaning up the existing drive), removing old unused software, or a new graphics card. Most recent generation CPUs can still handle newer software, and about the only thing that I've found that really needs an upgrade is gaming machines, and then only if they want to play the latest games or VR or something.
There are certainly advantages to the Windows market of computers, but the reality is that relatively few actually capitalise on upgradeability and
This is so true. I do consumer level computer help as a sideline. I can't tell you the number of people I've come across who've asked for help buying a new computer because their old one is "too slow" when all it really needed to be useful again was more memory, a faster hard drive (or even cleaning up the existing drive), removing old unused software, or a new graphics card. Most recent generation CPUs can still handle newer software, and about the only thing that I've found that really needs an upgrade is gaming machines, and then only if they want to play the latest games or VR or something.
Adding to that, I recently came across someone paying $120 per month for 10/1 Mibips on a business account that were no longer under contract for and the had been moved to their home. I switched them to 30/3 Mibips, saved them $80 per month, and their "slow computers" suddenly seemed like new computers to them.
Intel is not the culprit here. The real issue with that 5% hit is the problems with Mac. Now MacBook/Pro comes with unreliable keyboard, crappy webcam, display issues, T2 crash issues and many more and Apple is doing almost nothing to address these. Why someone with right mind will buy a machine with so many issues. Even if he/she gets Apple Care, after 3 years, the repair bill would be massive due to multiple failures. Lots of people are holding back for these reasons.
It's time for Apple to address these and bring "reliable" machine like previous years so that people want to buy again. Otherwise they will lose customers to PC.
Do people know that the keyboard has issues before they buy? I'll grant you it's one of the worst keyboards I've ever used since I've learned to type.
Apple CEO Tim Cook mentioned that Apple took about a five percent hit on Mac revenues because of constraints on Intel processors
That would imply that Apple is selling everything it can make and that is clearly NOT the case as there are plenty of prior year models on store shelves and almost always has been. So I can't quite buy that comment. As for more advanced processors, that's another issue, but Apple is not as good at compatibility as they used to be, so unlike prior transitions which went pretty well, I would expect a processor transition to be a chaotic nightmare.
It's great that you like the ability to "remove a few screws" and etc. I do as well, but the much, much larger customer base does not,
Unless there's research of which I'm unaware, you would have no idea how the larger customer base feels about this, but I think it's pretty obvious that people resent having to buy a new computer or paying for service (or even the hassle of getting free service) if all they want is a replacement battery, higher capacity drive or more memory. This is one area in which Apple's environmental stance is totally hypocritical because it is most certainly not environmentally friendly to essentially force people to buy a new computer when all they really need is a parts upgrade and one which Apple used to facilitate quite well. You can't tell me that a company like Apple, with all its engineering and design resources, can't design a thin computer in which the memory, battery and storage can be swapped out. They choose not to because it drives sales. If actually asked the question properly, I would maintain that the vast majority of people would prefer a slightly thicker computer in return for being able to perform those upgrades (or have someone else perform them at a low price because it's so easy to do).
Would you buy a car that forced you to return to the dealer to replace a battery, tires or windshield wiper fluid? Apple doesn't even get to that level of service because even if you bring it to them and pay for service, they won't even upgrade memory or storage. My late 2008 MBP enabled users to very easily upgrade, so as far as I'm concerned, we've taken massive steps backwards because Ive wants machines that are "social X-rays" (as Tom Wolfe once put it) and because many salaries at Apple are so high, they've lost all perception of pricing and what it means for an ordinary person to have to buy a new computer.
It's great that you like the ability to "remove a few screws" and etc. I do as well, but the much, much larger customer base does not,
Unless there's research of which I'm unaware, you would have no idea how the larger customer base feels about this, but I think it's pretty obvious that people resent having to buy a new computer or paying for service (or even the hassle of getting free service) if all they want is a replacement battery, higher capacity drive or more memory. This is one area in which Apple's environmental stance is totally hypocritical because it is most certainly not environmentally friendly to essentially force people to buy a new computer when all they really need is a parts upgrade and one which Apple used to facilitate quite well. You can't tell me that a company like Apple, with all its engineering and design resources, can't design a thin computer in which the memory, battery and storage can be swapped out. They choose not to because it drives sales. If actually asked the question properly, I would maintain that the vast majority of people would prefer a slightly thicker computer in return for being able to perform those upgrades (or have someone else perform them at a low price because it's so easy to do).
Would you buy a car that forced you to return to the dealer to replace a battery, tires or windshield wiper fluid? Apple doesn't even get to that level of service because even if you bring it to them and pay for service, they won't even upgrade memory or storage. My late 2008 MBP enabled users to very easily upgrade, so as far as I'm concerned, we've taken massive steps backwards because Ive wants machines that are "social X-rays" (as Tom Wolfe once put it) and because many salaries at Apple are so high, they've lost all perception of pricing and what it means for an ordinary person to have to buy a new computer.
There has been. Back in 2010 (ish, may be 2009), Apple was telling its service departments based on collated data after the launch of OS X that less than 10% of its customers had ever opened the door on a blue and white G3, any generation of G4, any generation of G5 or Mac Pro tower. And, about two percent of all of the macs from those generations ever saw a spec change beyond what shipped with the machine. Source: was there, and had amplifying anecdotal data from my own clients about it.
That "ordinary person" of which you speak doesn't give a rat's ass about upgradeability, and use a computer as an appliance, and has for a very long time. Source: did polling and reported about it at a previous venue.
This percentage is obviously way, way higher for AI readers, because of our target market and demographics, of course. You're conflating what you, and what most of the AI readers want, with what actually happens out in the real world.
And regarding your cars analogy, I suspect you over-estimate the number of people that do fluid or tire replacements on their own.
I've been through the 6502-68K, 68K-PPC and PPC-Intel switches. If there is a switch to ARM, I'm out of my head. No need for bootcamp, but Windows on a VM, no 32 bit games at all, but 64 bit professional apps, and 64 bitdrivers for anything.
I've been through the 6502-68K, 68K-PPC and PPC-Intel switches. If there is a switch to ARM, I'm out of my head. No need for bootcamp, but Windows on a VM, no 32 bit games at all, but 64 bit professional apps, and 64 bitdrivers for anything.
Fixed that for you.
Windows on a what VM? Do you remember the last time you’d run Windows on a VM under emulation? That was under SoftPC in the PPC era. After 15 years of BootCamp and native virtualization experience you cannot sell that SoftPC-like solutions to anyone.
1) For those complaining about moving from native x86 apps to ARM apps; Apple will have decent transition but will have a compatibility layer like Rosetta for legacy apps for at least a few years before dropping support entirely. Apple recently just dropped support for more unsupported file-types from the PPC era for reference.
2) Those worrying about bootcamp not being supported under ARM arcitecture; Windows is a security nightmare as it is, and there will probably be some advances in QEMU emulation and possibly more stable windows for ARM versions that will run natively. No, you will not have full hardware x86 support, but if you need the horsepower that bad you should just spend the money on a Windows laptop.
3) If you love Apple and want them to flourish, you need to let this transition happen as this will be the first true Apple designed CPU in a "PC" class device and the streamlining to the OS will be a performance dream. PowerPC, ARM, hell, even RISC-V; all of these can yeild the same performance, its up to the software and OEM to make a performance oriented layout and gameplan.
TL;DR: I grew up OS agnostic, on Linux, Classic and MacOS and Pre-NT to current Windows. All I can state is the computer market needs a shakedown, and with all of the security, software, and bussiness oriented issues, Apple has a chance to make something golder.
A proposal. The new Power9 and Power10 line of IBM CPU's already support PCIe4 and NVLink, not even Intel or AMD supporrs this at the consumer level. Now, Apple being in complete control would give them a huge benefit fto adding custom features baked directly into their CPU streamlined specifically for macOs. Yes please.
It's great that you like the ability to "remove a few screws" and etc. I do as well, but the much, much larger customer base does not,
Unless there's research of which I'm unaware, you would have no idea how the larger customer base feels about this, but I think it's pretty obvious that people resent having to buy a new computer or paying for service (or even the hassle of getting free service) if all they want is a replacement battery, higher capacity drive or more memory. This is one area in which Apple's environmental stance is totally hypocritical because it is most certainly not environmentally friendly to essentially force people to buy a new computer when all they really need is a parts upgrade and one which Apple used to facilitate quite well. You can't tell me that a company like Apple, with all its engineering and design resources, can't design a thin computer in which the memory, battery and storage can be swapped out. They choose not to because it drives sales. If actually asked the question properly, I would maintain that the vast majority of people would prefer a slightly thicker computer in return for being able to perform those upgrades (or have someone else perform them at a low price because it's so easy to do).
Would you buy a car that forced you to return to the dealer to replace a battery, tires or windshield wiper fluid? Apple doesn't even get to that level of service because even if you bring it to them and pay for service, they won't even upgrade memory or storage. My late 2008 MBP enabled users to very easily upgrade, so as far as I'm concerned, we've taken massive steps backwards because Ive wants machines that are "social X-rays" (as Tom Wolfe once put it) and because many salaries at Apple are so high, they've lost all perception of pricing and what it means for an ordinary person to have to buy a new computer.
There has been. Back in 2010 (ish, may be 2009), Apple was telling its service departments based on collated data after the launch of OS X that less than 10% of its customers had ever opened the door on a blue and white G3, any generation of G4, any generation of G5 or Mac Pro tower. And, about two percent of all of the macs from those generations ever saw a spec change beyond what shipped with the machine. Source: was there, and had amplifying anecdotal data from my own clients about it.
That "ordinary person" of which you speak doesn't give a rat's ass about upgradeability, and use a computer as an appliance, and has for a very long time. Source: did polling and reported about it at a previous venue.
This percentage is obviously way, way higher for AI readers, because of our target market and demographics, of course. You're conflating what you, and what most of the AI readers want, with what actually happens out in the real world.
And regarding your cars analogy, I suspect you over-estimate the number of people that do fluid or tire replacements on their own.
One other thing that people need to grasp is that eventually RAM will end up in the CPU (SoC) package. You may or may not be able to update with external RAM but even if you can it will be much slower RAM. We are already seeing this in GPU’s and every APU on the market could use much faster RAM today. I’m actually surprised that AMD hasn’t launched an APU already, so accelerated.
In a nut shell the economics and performance advantages of past update techniques don’t have the huge pay offs like in the past. Todays best payoff is an update to an SSD for most people. Beyond that it actually makes more sense to wait for the next significant design cycle and get all the advantages of the new hardware.
I might note note that I was one of those guys in the days of the 486 and such, that did a lot of upgrading. Today it would be foolish to spend money like that. If I have to upgrade a machine a year later then the obvious reality here is that I bought the wrong machine a year ago!
just a reminder, every year there is a speculation that apple is moving thier pc's to arm processors.
why don't you remind past predictions on the matter?
how ever how many companies has moved their pc's to arm solutions?
why macs took 5% hit?
how about outdated design ?
lousy keyboard?
No 4k option?
When was mac os really updated?
All attention goes to iphones ,ipads and of course emojis.
just a reminder, every year there is a speculation that apple is moving thier pc's to arm processors.
why don't you remind past predictions on the matter?
how ever how many companies has moved their pc's to arm solutions?
why macs took 5% hit?
how about outdated design ?
lousy keyboard?
No 4k option?
When was mac os really updated?
All attention goes to iphones ,ipads and of course emojis.
I'll try to parse some of your questions here, but I'm not sure what you're asking for most.
PCs to ARM: There have been Windows ARM machines for about the last two years. Why Macs took a 5% hit: In a venue where false statements can be punished under law, Cook and Maestri said that they were constrained by the well-documented Intel chip shortage. Outdated design: Versus? Lousy Keyboard: We've spoken about this at some length. No 4K option: Every shipping Mac, bar none, can drive a 4K display. When was MacOS really updated: Every 10.X update replaces 30-40% of the codebase, so the churn on macOS is greater than the last time Windows was updated from 8 to X. I will fully admit to not being sure what you're asking. iPhones, iPads, emojis: Emoji are controlled by the emoji consortium. Apple does not make their own. There are 20 iPhone users to every Mac user.
I'm ALL IN on Apple leaving Intel for their own (w/ ARM or AMD) chips. They proved that with the iPad Pro when it beat leading Intel based laptops in computers on speed and reliability tests. Time to move on.
not sure what to make Apple's mind - as new platform of 10 nm, intel is in the right to not to provide chips until yield is up and process/test bugs iron out prior to ship to customer. Bravo to Intel (rather take a hit by AI or other media). Hate to have some suppliers (not just one) throw un-mature products out as pre-market test sample, use customer's engineering force to do FA and just try to set a foot in the door - until some designer realize the truth - there was no production yield, no 6 sigma, it just what ever you get (if it throw over the wall, the otherside didn't bark, it worked), but too late to change vendor.... IMHO, rather deal with Intel type. As for AMD- you think they can fill the big hole Intel left? Intel got its own plant, AMD ramp up might need more hoop to jump, not mention product consistancy if they force to use multiple sites of 3rd party facilities. variation in quality will kill the customer margin (field return of customer product such as Mac), not mention reputation damage (sammy battery from 3rd party event rings bell).
Comments
So, yes, I do think all three can be accomplished at the same time, although maybe not with the 8th gen (and probably true with 6th and 7th gen), it will certainly be true with their own architectures.
That is not the case for GPUs, but they’re always in mid-tier, which is very common for multimedia laptops.
Unless there's research of which I'm unaware, you would have no idea how the larger customer base feels about this, but I think it's pretty obvious that people resent having to buy a new computer or paying for service (or even the hassle of getting free service) if all they want is a replacement battery, higher capacity drive or more memory. This is one area in which Apple's environmental stance is totally hypocritical because it is most certainly not environmentally friendly to essentially force people to buy a new computer when all they really need is a parts upgrade and one which Apple used to facilitate quite well. You can't tell me that a company like Apple, with all its engineering and design resources, can't design a thin computer in which the memory, battery and storage can be swapped out. They choose not to because it drives sales. If actually asked the question properly, I would maintain that the vast majority of people would prefer a slightly thicker computer in return for being able to perform those upgrades (or have someone else perform them at a low price because it's so easy to do).
Would you buy a car that forced you to return to the dealer to replace a battery, tires or windshield wiper fluid? Apple doesn't even get to that level of service because even if you bring it to them and pay for service, they won't even upgrade memory or storage. My late 2008 MBP enabled users to very easily upgrade, so as far as I'm concerned, we've taken massive steps backwards because Ive wants machines that are "social X-rays" (as Tom Wolfe once put it) and because many salaries at Apple are so high, they've lost all perception of pricing and what it means for an ordinary person to have to buy a new computer.
That "ordinary person" of which you speak doesn't give a rat's ass about upgradeability, and use a computer as an appliance, and has for a very long time. Source: did polling and reported about it at a previous venue.
This percentage is obviously way, way higher for AI readers, because of our target market and demographics, of course. You're conflating what you, and what most of the AI readers want, with what actually happens out in the real world.
And regarding your cars analogy, I suspect you over-estimate the number of people that do fluid or tire replacements on their own.
2) Those worrying about bootcamp not being supported under ARM arcitecture; Windows is a security nightmare as it is, and there will probably be some advances in QEMU emulation and possibly more stable windows for ARM versions that will run natively. No, you will not have full hardware x86 support, but if you need the horsepower that bad you should just spend the money on a Windows laptop.
3) If you love Apple and want them to flourish, you need to let this transition happen as this will be the first true Apple designed CPU in a "PC" class device and the streamlining to the OS will be a performance dream. PowerPC, ARM, hell, even RISC-V; all of these can yeild the same performance, its up to the software and OEM to make a performance oriented layout and gameplan.
TL;DR: I grew up OS agnostic, on Linux, Classic and MacOS and Pre-NT to current Windows. All I can state is the computer market needs a shakedown, and with all of the security, software, and bussiness oriented issues, Apple has a chance to make something golder.
A proposal. The new Power9 and Power10 line of IBM CPU's already support PCIe4 and NVLink, not even Intel or AMD supporrs this at the consumer level. Now, Apple being in complete control would give them a huge benefit fto adding custom features baked directly into their CPU streamlined specifically for macOs. Yes please.
In a nut shell the economics and performance advantages of past update techniques don’t have the huge pay offs like in the past. Todays best payoff is an update to an SSD for most people. Beyond that it actually makes more sense to wait for the next significant design cycle and get all the advantages of the new hardware.
I might note note that I was one of those guys in the days of the 486 and such, that did a lot of upgrading. Today it would be foolish to spend money like that. If I have to upgrade a machine a year later then the obvious reality here is that I bought the wrong machine a year ago!
PCs to ARM: There have been Windows ARM machines for about the last two years.
Why Macs took a 5% hit: In a venue where false statements can be punished under law, Cook and Maestri said that they were constrained by the well-documented Intel chip shortage.
Outdated design: Versus?
Lousy Keyboard: We've spoken about this at some length.
No 4K option: Every shipping Mac, bar none, can drive a 4K display.
When was MacOS really updated: Every 10.X update replaces 30-40% of the codebase, so the churn on macOS is greater than the last time Windows was updated from 8 to X. I will fully admit to not being sure what you're asking.
iPhones, iPads, emojis: Emoji are controlled by the emoji consortium. Apple does not make their own. There are 20 iPhone users to every Mac user.