As a developer, I need both mac and windows support. To openly campaign to remove Windows compat is to be irresponsible to the marketplace. If users don't need Windows, that's fine. Don't penalize me for your lack of needs.
I don't think you, nor FredFref read the article.
Why does a dissenting opinion mean they didn't read the article? Maybe they read, disagreed with the basic premise "cross-platform software compatibility is now mostly irrelevant to the wider user base" and everything that follows. Especially since you had a poll, found 35% that said, yes they needed windows and then proceeded to hand wave that away as AI readers aren't a representative sample. Which begs the question of WHY RUN THE POLL IN THE FIRST PLACE?
The next assertion "for Apple's biggest user base, the need for Windows compatibility isn't the same as it is for the main readers of this site" is fabricated out of thin air and has zero supporting data. Whether true or not it's based on nothing but speculation.
If the primary uses of the Macs are Pro and everyone else migrates to iPads then a significant fraction of Mac users (dare I say 35%) will want x86 compatibility.
But, nope...because they disagree they didn't read the article.
That's not why I said that, and you know it. And, there's a lot more to this quote of mine than what you clipped out. And, I didn't even say anything about the ludicrous assumption that this article is a "campaign" to remove Windows compatibility.
It wasn't handwaved away. What it is, is that 35% of the user base that reads AI doesn't need it, which is an overly conservative estimate of what the larger user base needs and does with their machines, and you know this as well, based on your own interactions with the rest of the AI readership. And, even if you translate it literally, it does mean that the majority doesn't care about Windows on the Mac.
Why run the poll and then disregard it? So what if 35% isn't the majority? It's still a large part of the user base.
And how do you know that it is "an overly conservative estimate of what the larger user base needs"? On what data is this assertion based on? Why do you assume that the majority of your readers are pros? Why did you not include in your survey to self identify if they were pros or just general users? Never mind that these polls are generally horridly misleading anyway.
The article, and you, would like to make it seem like it's 0.35% of the user base to sell the idea that x86 compatibility is no longer needed. Apple may have a good idea as to the number but you don't. Moreover you ignored the entire enterprise market because it's inconvenient. Does IBM and other major Mac deployments believe x86 compatibility is irrelevant? I have no idea and neither do you. It would have been fairly easy to reach out to IT folks highlighted in past articles and ask "hey, is x86 compatibility important to your Mac enterprise deployment?"
Nope.
But hey...35% is an overly conservative estimate of what the larger user base needs...
Regarding the bolded section, we are, and your own supposition of how that is going so far is wrong because what they care about so far is iOS development and general productivity. We'll see how it goes in total when we're done.
In regards to our audience, exactly who do you think AppleInsider is read by far, far more? College grads with advanced degrees, industry folk, designers and whatnot, or the "new Apple user" which is iOS centric, where the iPhone is a halo for the Mac and not the other way around?
And the demographics for Mac users are what? Gee maybe folks who are "college grads with advanced degrees, industry folk, designers and whatnot"?
Nah.
I will assert, based on personal experience, that there are very few enterprise iOS developers that don't care about MS project, DOORS and a bevy of windows/x86 corporate tools...still dependent on Excel with macros. People send me a lot of stuff in Visio to boot. Also, most of us aren't iOS developers but enterprise developers and the docker tool chain is a significant part of devops.
Yeah. we're not done. So far, we've spoken to IBM, Cisco, and Deloitte. There are about eight more on the docket. The point of this article, stands, though, that there is a line, where below it, the need for Windows is non-existent.
And you have failed to show where that line is. Again, is the AI demographic you just stated significantly different than that of Mac users? Or have most of the "new Apple users" that don't frequent AI already moved to the iPad or never bought a Mac in the first place and have a windows laptop somewhere?
I'm not really sure what you're asking, here.
We didn't set out to draw precisely where the line is, so there is no failure to show something that we didn't set out to show. The piece is more to remind folks that there is a line, even though that there is the assumption that Windows compatibility is everything to everybody. We were pretty clear in the end of the piece in regards to the Mac Pro maybe never shifting.
Who do you think reads AI? Do you not think it's primarily Apple devout for decades? William addresses this in the piece, somewhat, in regards to who reads AI. Who reads AI should be apparent from the forums at least. Based on what we know, the "average" AI reader has been in the Apple ecosystem for well over a decade, is pretty heavily technologically savvy, has many Apple devices and has for ages, well before the iPhone 3gs, iPad, and iPhone 6 explosions in Apple user volume.
If we could tap into 1% of the "new" Apple customer, we'd be sitting on a gold mine. Most of the new Apple users bought an iPhone and have just that so aren't relevant to this particular conversation, or got an iPhone or iPad and said "hey, this Mac thing might be pretty great" rather than the other way around like it was a decade ago.
This is the point. The article (and you) argues that the poll results are irrelevant (ie "overly conservative") because it does not represent the "larger user base needs". I argue that the AI demographic more closely matches that of Mac users than the larger "new Apple users" and therefore not necessarily "overly conservative".
If around a third of the prospective user base needs a feature it sure as hell isn't a minor feature. There isn't any "assumption that Windows compatibility is everything to everybody" but that a significant part of the Mac user base (say closer to 35% than 3.5%) wants that feature.
There is nothing an ARM based Mac does that an ARM based iPad Pro couldn't do with a couple further tweaks to iOS.
So why go through the disruption of a significant processor change and leave the Mac lineup half Intel and half ARM?
We didn't say they were irrelevant, and I'm not sure why you keep saying that. What they are is overly tilted in favor of virtualization and windows compatibility given what we know about who reads and interacts with AppleInsider. And, even given that, the majority still isn't doing it, and it isn't close.
At no point are we saying that there won't be disruption.
And as far as why do it? You just have to look to the last two major Mac processor shifts -- Vendors not delivering what they promise.
As a developer, I need both mac and windows support. To openly campaign to remove Windows compat is to be irresponsible to the marketplace. If users don't need Windows, that's fine. Don't penalize me for your lack of needs.
I don't think you, nor FredFref read the article.
Why does a dissenting opinion mean they didn't read the article? Maybe they read, disagreed with the basic premise "cross-platform software compatibility is now mostly irrelevant to the wider user base" and everything that follows. Especially since you had a poll, found 35% that said, yes they needed windows and then proceeded to hand wave that away as AI readers aren't a representative sample. Which begs the question of WHY RUN THE POLL IN THE FIRST PLACE?
The next assertion "for Apple's biggest user base, the need for Windows compatibility isn't the same as it is for the main readers of this site" is fabricated out of thin air and has zero supporting data. Whether true or not it's based on nothing but speculation.
If the primary uses of the Macs are Pro and everyone else migrates to iPads then a significant fraction of Mac users (dare I say 35%) will want x86 compatibility.
But, nope...because they disagree they didn't read the article.
That's not why I said that, and you know it. And, there's a lot more to this quote of mine than what you clipped out. And, I didn't even say anything about the ludicrous assumption that this article is a "campaign" to remove Windows compatibility.
It wasn't handwaved away. What it is, is that 35% of the user base that reads AI doesn't need it, which is an overly conservative estimate of what the larger user base needs and does with their machines, and you know this as well, based on your own interactions with the rest of the AI readership. And, even if you translate it literally, it does mean that the majority doesn't care about Windows on the Mac.
Why run the poll and then disregard it? So what if 35% isn't the majority? It's still a large part of the user base.
And how do you know that it is "an overly conservative estimate of what the larger user base needs"? On what data is this assertion based on? Why do you assume that the majority of your readers are pros? Why did you not include in your survey to self identify if they were pros or just general users? Never mind that these polls are generally horridly misleading anyway.
The article, and you, would like to make it seem like it's 0.35% of the user base to sell the idea that x86 compatibility is no longer needed. Apple may have a good idea as to the number but you don't. Moreover you ignored the entire enterprise market because it's inconvenient. Does IBM and other major Mac deployments believe x86 compatibility is irrelevant? I have no idea and neither do you. It would have been fairly easy to reach out to IT folks highlighted in past articles and ask "hey, is x86 compatibility important to your Mac enterprise deployment?"
Nope.
But hey...35% is an overly conservative estimate of what the larger user base needs...
Regarding the bolded section, we are, and your own supposition of how that is going so far is wrong because what they care about so far is iOS development and general productivity. We'll see how it goes in total when we're done.
In regards to our audience, exactly who do you think AppleInsider is read by far, far more? College grads with advanced degrees, industry folk, designers and whatnot, or the "new Apple user" which is iOS centric, where the iPhone is a halo for the Mac and not the other way around?
And the demographics for Mac users are what? Gee maybe folks who are "college grads with advanced degrees, industry folk, designers and whatnot"?
Nah.
I will assert, based on personal experience, that there are very few enterprise iOS developers that don't care about MS project, DOORS and a bevy of windows/x86 corporate tools...still dependent on Excel with macros. People send me a lot of stuff in Visio to boot. Also, most of us aren't iOS developers but enterprise developers and the docker tool chain is a significant part of devops.
Yeah. we're not done. So far, we've spoken to IBM, Cisco, and Deloitte. There are about eight more on the docket. The point of this article, stands, though, that there is a line, where below it, the need for Windows is non-existent.
And you have failed to show where that line is. Again, is the AI demographic you just stated significantly different than that of Mac users? Or have most of the "new Apple users" that don't frequent AI already moved to the iPad or never bought a Mac in the first place and have a windows laptop somewhere?
I'm not really sure what you're asking, here.
We didn't set out to draw precisely where the line is, so there is no failure to show something that we didn't set out to show. The piece is more to remind folks that there is a line, even though that there is the assumption that Windows compatibility is everything to everybody. We were pretty clear in the end of the piece in regards to the Mac Pro maybe never shifting.
Who do you think reads AI? Do you not think it's primarily Apple devout for decades? William addresses this in the piece, somewhat, in regards to who reads AI. Who reads AI should be apparent from the forums at least. Based on what we know, the "average" AI reader has been in the Apple ecosystem for well over a decade, is pretty heavily technologically savvy, has many Apple devices and has for ages, well before the iPhone 3gs, iPad, and iPhone 6 explosions in Apple user volume.
If we could tap into 1% of the "new" Apple customer, we'd be sitting on a gold mine. Most of the new Apple users bought an iPhone and have just that so aren't relevant to this particular conversation, or got an iPhone or iPad and said "hey, this Mac thing might be pretty great" rather than the other way around like it was a decade ago.
This is the point. The article (and you) argues that the poll results are irrelevant (ie "overly conservative") because it does not represent the "larger user base needs". I argue that the AI demographic more closely matches that of Mac users than the larger "new Apple users" and therefore not necessarily "overly conservative".
If around a third of the prospective user base needs a feature it sure as hell isn't a minor feature. There isn't any "assumption that Windows compatibility is everything to everybody" but that a significant part of the Mac user base (say closer to 35% than 3.5%) wants that feature.
There is nothing an ARM based Mac does that an ARM based iPad Pro couldn't do with a couple further tweaks to iOS.
So why go through the disruption of a significant processor change and leave the Mac lineup half Intel and half ARM?
We didn't say they were irrelevant, and I'm not sure why you keep saying that. What they are is overly tilted in favor of virtualization and windows compatibility given what we know about who reads and interacts with AppleInsider. And, even given that, the majority still isn't doing it, and it isn't close.
At no point are we saying that there won't be disruption.
And as far as why do it? You just have to look to the last two major Mac processor shifts -- Vendors not delivering what they promise.
Again, how do you know the poll is “overly tilted in favor of virtualization and windows compatibility“ when those that read AI tend NOT to be the “new Apple” crowd and more of the “old Apple” crowd that owns more than just iOS devices? In other words the AI demographic more closely matches the Mac demographic than it does the “new Apple” demographic.
You keep harping on “majority” and trying to avoid admitting that 35% is significant enough percentage to warrant keeping that feature. Which is why you want to call 35% results to be “overly tilted”.
While intel faltered on 10nm it looks like Ice Lake will finally fulfill those promises and Intel has steadily improved power per watt on 14nm. Further it seems that Intel has been fairly responsive to Apple and my guess is that the customer that requested lakefiejld processor (bigLittle) from Intel was Apple. Or they will apply Foveros to stack something like T2 with Intel cores to reduce footprint.
Intel had a bad few years...just like with Itanium. It’s fashionable to bag on Intel right now and who knows maybe the new Ice Lakes won’t hit 18% IPC improvements. I’m guessing Intel is back on track
This is no different to the death of fax machines or film cameras or VHS players or CDs or DVDs or floppy discs or DVD drives or wired headphones or tons of other technology: there is always an (ageing, usually) out-of-touch bunch of naysayers who have fantasy rants about how nothing will ever be the same and how their handful of bucks is going to stop inevitable change and bring about the downfall of the offending company.
What they they really mean is that they don’t have the ability or imagination to change. They get stuck and the rest of the world zooms ahead. Their criticisms say more about their own inabilities rather what can and will happen in the future.
ARM is coming. Intel is dying. X86 is dying. Windows is dying. The rest of the planet are moving on to a cleaner, safer, faster future.
ARM has been around and Microsoft has been using them for their Surface line. And no, Windows isn't dying at all. Far from it. Cleaner, safer and faster? Have you checked the news lately? It's not even going that way due to the current administration from the White House at DC. And if you think the rest of the planet is going cleaner, not quite. They have a long way to go before everyone including the USA gets on the same page completely and fix the environmental and climate issues.
And I doubt Apple will put ARM in all of their machines. Something tells me they're going to have some bumps with the transition in the next few years just like they did with PowerPC to Intel. More likely ARM will be in iPad and MacBooks for mobile computing which makes sense. Not sure about iMac and Mac Pros which I don't think is a good idea and that's where Intel should stick with.
That was the Surface line that failed—twice. Is that supposed to be a positive?
As a developer, I need both mac and windows support. To openly campaign to remove Windows compat is to be irresponsible to the marketplace. If users don't need Windows, that's fine. Don't penalize me for your lack of needs.
I don't think you, nor FredFref read the article.
Why does a dissenting opinion mean they didn't read the article? Maybe they read, disagreed with the basic premise "cross-platform software compatibility is now mostly irrelevant to the wider user base" and everything that follows. Especially since you had a poll, found 35% that said, yes they needed windows and then proceeded to hand wave that away as AI readers aren't a representative sample. Which begs the question of WHY RUN THE POLL IN THE FIRST PLACE?
The next assertion "for Apple's biggest user base, the need for Windows compatibility isn't the same as it is for the main readers of this site" is fabricated out of thin air and has zero supporting data. Whether true or not it's based on nothing but speculation.
If the primary uses of the Macs are Pro and everyone else migrates to iPads then a significant fraction of Mac users (dare I say 35%) will want x86 compatibility.
But, nope...because they disagree they didn't read the article.
That's not why I said that, and you know it. And, there's a lot more to this quote of mine than what you clipped out. And, I didn't even say anything about the ludicrous assumption that this article is a "campaign" to remove Windows compatibility.
It wasn't handwaved away. What it is, is that 35% of the user base that reads AI doesn't need it, which is an overly conservative estimate of what the larger user base needs and does with their machines, and you know this as well, based on your own interactions with the rest of the AI readership. And, even if you translate it literally, it does mean that the majority doesn't care about Windows on the Mac.
Why run the poll and then disregard it? So what if 35% isn't the majority? It's still a large part of the user base.
And how do you know that it is "an overly conservative estimate of what the larger user base needs"? On what data is this assertion based on? Why do you assume that the majority of your readers are pros? Why did you not include in your survey to self identify if they were pros or just general users? Never mind that these polls are generally horridly misleading anyway.
The article, and you, would like to make it seem like it's 0.35% of the user base to sell the idea that x86 compatibility is no longer needed. Apple may have a good idea as to the number but you don't. Moreover you ignored the entire enterprise market because it's inconvenient. Does IBM and other major Mac deployments believe x86 compatibility is irrelevant? I have no idea and neither do you. It would have been fairly easy to reach out to IT folks highlighted in past articles and ask "hey, is x86 compatibility important to your Mac enterprise deployment?"
Nope.
But hey...35% is an overly conservative estimate of what the larger user base needs...
Regarding the bolded section, we are, and your own supposition of how that is going so far is wrong because what they care about so far is iOS development and general productivity. We'll see how it goes in total when we're done.
In regards to our audience, exactly who do you think AppleInsider is read by far, far more? College grads with advanced degrees, industry folk, designers and whatnot, or the "new Apple user" which is iOS centric, where the iPhone is a halo for the Mac and not the other way around?
And the demographics for Mac users are what? Gee maybe folks who are "college grads with advanced degrees, industry folk, designers and whatnot"?
Nah.
I will assert, based on personal experience, that there are very few enterprise iOS developers that don't care about MS project, DOORS and a bevy of windows/x86 corporate tools...still dependent on Excel with macros. People send me a lot of stuff in Visio to boot. Also, most of us aren't iOS developers but enterprise developers and the docker tool chain is a significant part of devops.
Yeah. we're not done. So far, we've spoken to IBM, Cisco, and Deloitte. There are about eight more on the docket. The point of this article, stands, though, that there is a line, where below it, the need for Windows is non-existent.
And you have failed to show where that line is. Again, is the AI demographic you just stated significantly different than that of Mac users? Or have most of the "new Apple users" that don't frequent AI already moved to the iPad or never bought a Mac in the first place and have a windows laptop somewhere?
I'm not really sure what you're asking, here.
We didn't set out to draw precisely where the line is, so there is no failure to show something that we didn't set out to show. The piece is more to remind folks that there is a line, even though that there is the assumption that Windows compatibility is everything to everybody. We were pretty clear in the end of the piece in regards to the Mac Pro maybe never shifting.
Who do you think reads AI? Do you not think it's primarily Apple devout for decades? William addresses this in the piece, somewhat, in regards to who reads AI. Who reads AI should be apparent from the forums at least. Based on what we know, the "average" AI reader has been in the Apple ecosystem for well over a decade, is pretty heavily technologically savvy, has many Apple devices and has for ages, well before the iPhone 3gs, iPad, and iPhone 6 explosions in Apple user volume.
If we could tap into 1% of the "new" Apple customer, we'd be sitting on a gold mine. Most of the new Apple users bought an iPhone and have just that so aren't relevant to this particular conversation, or got an iPhone or iPad and said "hey, this Mac thing might be pretty great" rather than the other way around like it was a decade ago.
This is the point. The article (and you) argues that the poll results are irrelevant (ie "overly conservative") because it does not represent the "larger user base needs". I argue that the AI demographic more closely matches that of Mac users than the larger "new Apple users" and therefore not necessarily "overly conservative".
If around a third of the prospective user base needs a feature it sure as hell isn't a minor feature. There isn't any "assumption that Windows compatibility is everything to everybody" but that a significant part of the Mac user base (say closer to 35% than 3.5%) wants that feature.
There is nothing an ARM based Mac does that an ARM based iPad Pro couldn't do with a couple further tweaks to iOS.
So why go through the disruption of a significant processor change and leave the Mac lineup half Intel and half ARM?
We didn't say they were irrelevant, and I'm not sure why you keep saying that. What they are is overly tilted in favor of virtualization and windows compatibility given what we know about who reads and interacts with AppleInsider. And, even given that, the majority still isn't doing it, and it isn't close.
At no point are we saying that there won't be disruption.
And as far as why do it? You just have to look to the last two major Mac processor shifts -- Vendors not delivering what they promise.
Again, how do you know the poll is “overly tilted in favor of virtualization and windows compatibility“ when those that read AI tend NOT to be the “new Apple” crowd and more of the “old Apple” crowd that owns more than just iOS devices? In other words the AI demographic more closely matches the Mac demographic than it does the “new Apple” demographic.
You keep harping on “majority” and trying to avoid admitting that 35% is significant enough percentage to warrant keeping that feature. Which is why you want to call 35% results to be “overly tilted”.
While intel faltered on 10nm it looks like Ice Lake will finally fulfill those promises and Intel has steadily improved power per watt on 14nm. Further it seems that Intel has been fairly responsive to Apple and my guess is that the customer that requested lakefiejld processor (bigLittle) from Intel was Apple. Or they will apply Foveros to stack something like T2 with Intel cores to reduce footprint.
Intel had a bad few years...just like with Itanium. It’s fashionable to bag on Intel right now and who knows maybe the new Ice Lakes won’t hit 18% IPC improvements. I’m guessing Intel is back on track
I've already addressed this in some depth, but here it is again: The AI demo is the high end, tech savvy part of the Mac market. You know, the part of the Mac market that knows that the feature exists, and has the aptitude and/or need to do so. The numbers are right in front of you. If 2/3 of the tech savvy users don't use it, do you honestly think that the new Apple users do in a higher percentage, or even the same? 100% of the Mac using population used USB-A when the 2016 MacBook Pro came out, and Apple shifted anyway. 100% of Mac users used ADB before the iMac, and Apple shifted anyway. Do you think that 35% is going to slow them down on a shift that they want to make to not be beholden to Intel?
Intel hasn't had a "bad few years." It's had a bad 2011-2019 and 10nm is literally, three years late. For the last eight years, it hasn't set a deadline for release that it's made. It was less time in 94, and in 06 where deadlines weren't being met when the other shifts were made.
We don't get to say what Apple keeps and what doesn't, and this still isn't some kind of pitch for Apple to do so. It is an observation about why it probably will. There are enough signposts on the road that an ARM Mac is coming. You're welcome to ignore them at your leisure.
Look, I get that you don't like it. I get that you don't want to see it. I get that you use it, and 35% of the AI demo does. I use it. But, none of that matters to Apple one bit, and you know it.
I think compatibility is going to be a big issue for some. If 35% of people here want Windows compatibility, the percentage of it that need it is likely to be fairly high too. If I wasn't able to run Windows on my Mac I would certainly think hard about whether to get another Mac in the future. I need the compatibility. I know a few people with Macs at uni, on various courses. All of them and myself have Windows installed. I think also it gives people who switch a backup if they don't like macOS, and allows people who like macOS to avoid Apple's anti-gaming OCD by rebooting to Windows.
Unfortunately all these little restrictions, depreciations, removals and neglect in software, along with neglect of certain hardware and features gradually may not directly affect a large proportion of the Mac userbase, but add them all up and it does. It leads to an experience that is less than what you expect from Apple. Just yesterday someone was trying to listen to something in the pub, and someone had headphones. Couldn't use them with the iPhone. Removing Back to my Mac - a really handy feature I used regularly, the removal of half the ports on Macs, making it much more cumbersome to use existing peripherals, the dumping of the AirPort line. Removing the optical connector from Macs and the AppleTV. All these things add up to make Apple's products more and more awkward to use, and with less perceived value-added. The Mac's main selling point and justification for its high price is that it's supposed to be easier to use than the competition, but when you have to go out and buy a batch of software to replace what Apple removed over the past few years, plus buying a bagful of dongles, the value proposition starts to look less and less appealing.
Intel's x86 is a crap architecture and it needs completely redesigning from the ground up. AMD didn't help on that front as Intel were trying to push people to their PPC based Itanium CPUs rather than bodge 64 bit onto x86, but AMD leapfrogged them and did it anyway. The ARM architecture is excellent, but not necessarily scalable to the sorts of applications that currently use x86. For laptops ARM is a no-brainer, but then you have a two-tier macOS and FAT binaries for the third time. A solution to that would be for desktop Macs to have both ARM and x86 CPUs in (like the T2) but then you have plenty of issues sharing RAM with one arch being little endian and the other big. If anyone was to come up with a solution for that though, it'd be Apple.
As a developer, I need both mac and windows support. To openly campaign to remove Windows compat is to be irresponsible to the marketplace. If users don't need Windows, that's fine. Don't penalize me for your lack of needs.
I don't think you, nor FredFref read the article.
Why does a dissenting opinion mean they didn't read the article? Maybe they read, disagreed with the basic premise "cross-platform software compatibility is now mostly irrelevant to the wider user base" and everything that follows. Especially since you had a poll, found 35% that said, yes they needed windows and then proceeded to hand wave that away as AI readers aren't a representative sample. Which begs the question of WHY RUN THE POLL IN THE FIRST PLACE?
The next assertion "for Apple's biggest user base, the need for Windows compatibility isn't the same as it is for the main readers of this site" is fabricated out of thin air and has zero supporting data. Whether true or not it's based on nothing but speculation.
If the primary uses of the Macs are Pro and everyone else migrates to iPads then a significant fraction of Mac users (dare I say 35%) will want x86 compatibility.
But, nope...because they disagree they didn't read the article.
That's not why I said that, and you know it. And, there's a lot more to this quote of mine than what you clipped out. And, I didn't even say anything about the ludicrous assumption that this article is a "campaign" to remove Windows compatibility.
It wasn't handwaved away. What it is, is that 35% of the user base that reads AI doesn't need it, which is an overly conservative estimate of what the larger user base needs and does with their machines, and you know this as well, based on your own interactions with the rest of the AI readership. And, even if you translate it literally, it does mean that the majority doesn't care about Windows on the Mac.
Why run the poll and then disregard it? So what if 35% isn't the majority? It's still a large part of the user base.
And how do you know that it is "an overly conservative estimate of what the larger user base needs"? On what data is this assertion based on? Why do you assume that the majority of your readers are pros? Why did you not include in your survey to self identify if they were pros or just general users? Never mind that these polls are generally horridly misleading anyway.
The article, and you, would like to make it seem like it's 0.35% of the user base to sell the idea that x86 compatibility is no longer needed. Apple may have a good idea as to the number but you don't. Moreover you ignored the entire enterprise market because it's inconvenient. Does IBM and other major Mac deployments believe x86 compatibility is irrelevant? I have no idea and neither do you. It would have been fairly easy to reach out to IT folks highlighted in past articles and ask "hey, is x86 compatibility important to your Mac enterprise deployment?"
Nope.
But hey...35% is an overly conservative estimate of what the larger user base needs...
Regarding the bolded section, we are, and your own supposition of how that is going so far is wrong because what they care about so far is iOS development and general productivity. We'll see how it goes in total when we're done.
In regards to our audience, exactly who do you think AppleInsider is read by far, far more? College grads with advanced degrees, industry folk, designers and whatnot, or the "new Apple user" which is iOS centric, where the iPhone is a halo for the Mac and not the other way around?
And the demographics for Mac users are what? Gee maybe folks who are "college grads with advanced degrees, industry folk, designers and whatnot"?
Nah.
I will assert, based on personal experience, that there are very few enterprise iOS developers that don't care about MS project, DOORS and a bevy of windows/x86 corporate tools...still dependent on Excel with macros. People send me a lot of stuff in Visio to boot. Also, most of us aren't iOS developers but enterprise developers and the docker tool chain is a significant part of devops.
Yeah. we're not done. So far, we've spoken to IBM, Cisco, and Deloitte. There are about eight more on the docket. The point of this article, stands, though, that there is a line, where below it, the need for Windows is non-existent.
And you have failed to show where that line is. Again, is the AI demographic you just stated significantly different than that of Mac users? Or have most of the "new Apple users" that don't frequent AI already moved to the iPad or never bought a Mac in the first place and have a windows laptop somewhere?
I'm not really sure what you're asking, here.
We didn't set out to draw precisely where the line is, so there is no failure to show something that we didn't set out to show. The piece is more to remind folks that there is a line, even though that there is the assumption that Windows compatibility is everything to everybody. We were pretty clear in the end of the piece in regards to the Mac Pro maybe never shifting.
Who do you think reads AI? Do you not think it's primarily Apple devout for decades? William addresses this in the piece, somewhat, in regards to who reads AI. Who reads AI should be apparent from the forums at least. Based on what we know, the "average" AI reader has been in the Apple ecosystem for well over a decade, is pretty heavily technologically savvy, has many Apple devices and has for ages, well before the iPhone 3gs, iPad, and iPhone 6 explosions in Apple user volume.
If we could tap into 1% of the "new" Apple customer, we'd be sitting on a gold mine. Most of the new Apple users bought an iPhone and have just that so aren't relevant to this particular conversation, or got an iPhone or iPad and said "hey, this Mac thing might be pretty great" rather than the other way around like it was a decade ago.
This is the point. The article (and you) argues that the poll results are irrelevant (ie "overly conservative") because it does not represent the "larger user base needs". I argue that the AI demographic more closely matches that of Mac users than the larger "new Apple users" and therefore not necessarily "overly conservative".
If around a third of the prospective user base needs a feature it sure as hell isn't a minor feature. There isn't any "assumption that Windows compatibility is everything to everybody" but that a significant part of the Mac user base (say closer to 35% than 3.5%) wants that feature.
There is nothing an ARM based Mac does that an ARM based iPad Pro couldn't do with a couple further tweaks to iOS.
So why go through the disruption of a significant processor change and leave the Mac lineup half Intel and half ARM?
We didn't say they were irrelevant, and I'm not sure why you keep saying that. What they are is overly tilted in favor of virtualization and windows compatibility given what we know about who reads and interacts with AppleInsider. And, even given that, the majority still isn't doing it, and it isn't close.
At no point are we saying that there won't be disruption.
And as far as why do it? You just have to look to the last two major Mac processor shifts -- Vendors not delivering what they promise.
Again, how do you know the poll is “overly tilted in favor of virtualization and windows compatibility“ when those that read AI tend NOT to be the “new Apple” crowd and more of the “old Apple” crowd that owns more than just iOS devices? In other words the AI demographic more closely matches the Mac demographic than it does the “new Apple” demographic.
You keep harping on “majority” and trying to avoid admitting that 35% is significant enough percentage to warrant keeping that feature. Which is why you want to call 35% results to be “overly tilted”.
While intel faltered on 10nm it looks like Ice Lake will finally fulfill those promises and Intel has steadily improved power per watt on 14nm. Further it seems that Intel has been fairly responsive to Apple and my guess is that the customer that requested lakefiejld processor (bigLittle) from Intel was Apple. Or they will apply Foveros to stack something like T2 with Intel cores to reduce footprint.
Intel had a bad few years...just like with Itanium. It’s fashionable to bag on Intel right now and who knows maybe the new Ice Lakes won’t hit 18% IPC improvements. I’m guessing Intel is back on track
I've already addressed this in some depth, but here it is again: The AI demo is the high end, tech savvy part of the Mac market. You know, the part of the Mac market that knows that the feature exists, and has the aptitude and/or need to do so. The numbers are right in front of you. If 2/3 of the tech savvy users don't use it, do you honestly think that the new Apple users do in a higher percentage, or even the same? 100% of the Mac using population used USB-A when the 2016 MacBook Pro came out, and Apple shifted anyway. 100% of Mac users used ADB before the iMac, and Apple shifted anyway. Do you think that 35% is going to slow them down on a shift that they want to make to not be beholden to Intel?
Intel hasn't had a "bad few years." It's had a bad 2011-2019 and 10nm is literally, three years late. For the last eight years, it hasn't set a deadline for release that it's made. It was less time in 94, and in 06 where deadlines weren't being met when the other shifts were made.
We don't get to say what Apple keeps and what doesn't, and this still isn't some kind of pitch for Apple to do so. It is an observation about why it probably will. There are enough signposts on the road that an ARM Mac is coming. You're welcome to ignore them at your leisure.
Look, I get that you don't like it. I get that you don't want to see it. I get that you use it, and 35% of the AI demo does. I use it. But, none of that matters to Apple one bit, and you know it.
You’re ignoring a number of things. As I mentioned in a post that hasn’t been answered, a lot of Mac users boot into Windows because of games. That’s not a trivial number. It can easily account for a large part of that 35%. Not everyone who does something is tech savvy. Installing Windows isn’t that hard.
maybe there are signposts, and maybe it’s just a desire to see signposts. We don’t know.
if Apple doesn’t care, then why do they do it, and why do they maintain it?
The question I have is, if you're kissing off 35% of your customers, where do the replacements come from? I doubt you can grow the base back by adding a bunch of ported iOS apps. I will probably be one of them because, although I stopped running Parallels a long time ago, I need the option for work stuff.
Interesting...... We have been a Windows-Free household for years, until recently:
My daughter's new job requires proprietary Windows software
Me - woodworking...
I have a woodworking hobby and native Mac apps like SketchUp or Mac/Java apps met my needs... Then I bought a woodworking CNC machine!
My long-term goal was to eventually run both CAD and CAM on an iPad Pro* -- It seemed like a natural to use the Apple Pencil for the CAD (Computer-Aided Design) and the iPad certainly had the horsepower to run the CAM (Computer-Aided Manufacturing) -- which is reading a text file (gcode) program and issue simple X,Y,Z axis commands to control the CNC machine (similar to Turtle Graphics). There are gcode interpreters for the Raspberry Pi.
To promote my long-term goal, I attempted to run entirely on the Mac. The CAM was easy, as the major software was a Java app available for Mac and Windows. The best Mac CAD app is Autodesk Fusion 360 -- but it has a very, very steep learning curve. There are a few others and some on-line apps, but they are limited.
Long story, shorter: The CAD scene is dominated by Vectric apps: VCarve and Aspire. These are Windows only!
So, I bit the bullet and bought:
VMWare Fusuion Emulator
VCarve Desktop CAD app
TotalAV Mac Virus Scanner
Yes, sadly, after a few days my Mac had been infected by viruses...
So, there it is: If you want to do CAM, you need to do Windows (and all that comes with it)...
Disruption anyone?
Hi Dick, I always enjoy and respect your comments. Coincidently I just had to buy a Dell laptop (high end one too) for my granddaughter who is starting University this year to study architecture and I hit the same issues with software requirements. It's all Windows.
I do have to chime in though, regarding the virus issue, I am surprised about the infections you got. I am a newbie to Windows (well since back in the early days) and have had Windows 10 running for the last two years on a few VMs, Boot Camp and since last year a Dell Server (2010 from eBay converted from Windows Server 16 to Windows 10 Pro by me) and a new Dell mid-tower with an i7 and GTX 1080 for games. I decided not to use any malware or anti-virus 3rd party application/utilities solely relying on Microsoft's built-in protections as I do with macOS and Apple's. So far not a single problem.
As a developer, I need both mac and windows support. To openly campaign to remove Windows compat is to be irresponsible to the marketplace. If users don't need Windows, that's fine. Don't penalize me for your lack of needs.
I don't think you, nor FredFref read the article.
Why does a dissenting opinion mean they didn't read the article? Maybe they read, disagreed with the basic premise "cross-platform software compatibility is now mostly irrelevant to the wider user base" and everything that follows. Especially since you had a poll, found 35% that said, yes they needed windows and then proceeded to hand wave that away as AI readers aren't a representative sample. Which begs the question of WHY RUN THE POLL IN THE FIRST PLACE?
The next assertion "for Apple's biggest user base, the need for Windows compatibility isn't the same as it is for the main readers of this site" is fabricated out of thin air and has zero supporting data. Whether true or not it's based on nothing but speculation.
If the primary uses of the Macs are Pro and everyone else migrates to iPads then a significant fraction of Mac users (dare I say 35%) will want x86 compatibility.
But, nope...because they disagree they didn't read the article.
That's not why I said that, and you know it. And, there's a lot more to this quote of mine than what you clipped out. And, I didn't even say anything about the ludicrous assumption that this article is a "campaign" to remove Windows compatibility.
It wasn't handwaved away. What it is, is that 35% of the user base that reads AI doesn't need it, which is an overly conservative estimate of what the larger user base needs and does with their machines, and you know this as well, based on your own interactions with the rest of the AI readership. And, even if you translate it literally, it does mean that the majority doesn't care about Windows on the Mac.
Why run the poll and then disregard it? So what if 35% isn't the majority? It's still a large part of the user base.
And how do you know that it is "an overly conservative estimate of what the larger user base needs"? On what data is this assertion based on? Why do you assume that the majority of your readers are pros? Why did you not include in your survey to self identify if they were pros or just general users? Never mind that these polls are generally horridly misleading anyway.
The article, and you, would like to make it seem like it's 0.35% of the user base to sell the idea that x86 compatibility is no longer needed. Apple may have a good idea as to the number but you don't. Moreover you ignored the entire enterprise market because it's inconvenient. Does IBM and other major Mac deployments believe x86 compatibility is irrelevant? I have no idea and neither do you. It would have been fairly easy to reach out to IT folks highlighted in past articles and ask "hey, is x86 compatibility important to your Mac enterprise deployment?"
Nope.
But hey...35% is an overly conservative estimate of what the larger user base needs...
Regarding the bolded section, we are, and your own supposition of how that is going so far is wrong because what they care about so far is iOS development and general productivity. We'll see how it goes in total when we're done.
In regards to our audience, exactly who do you think AppleInsider is read by far, far more? College grads with advanced degrees, industry folk, designers and whatnot, or the "new Apple user" which is iOS centric, where the iPhone is a halo for the Mac and not the other way around?
And the demographics for Mac users are what? Gee maybe folks who are "college grads with advanced degrees, industry folk, designers and whatnot"?
Nah.
I will assert, based on personal experience, that there are very few enterprise iOS developers that don't care about MS project, DOORS and a bevy of windows/x86 corporate tools...still dependent on Excel with macros. People send me a lot of stuff in Visio to boot. Also, most of us aren't iOS developers but enterprise developers and the docker tool chain is a significant part of devops.
Yeah. we're not done. So far, we've spoken to IBM, Cisco, and Deloitte. There are about eight more on the docket. The point of this article, stands, though, that there is a line, where below it, the need for Windows is non-existent.
And you have failed to show where that line is. Again, is the AI demographic you just stated significantly different than that of Mac users? Or have most of the "new Apple users" that don't frequent AI already moved to the iPad or never bought a Mac in the first place and have a windows laptop somewhere?
I'm not really sure what you're asking, here.
We didn't set out to draw precisely where the line is, so there is no failure to show something that we didn't set out to show. The piece is more to remind folks that there is a line, even though that there is the assumption that Windows compatibility is everything to everybody. We were pretty clear in the end of the piece in regards to the Mac Pro maybe never shifting.
Who do you think reads AI? Do you not think it's primarily Apple devout for decades? William addresses this in the piece, somewhat, in regards to who reads AI. Who reads AI should be apparent from the forums at least. Based on what we know, the "average" AI reader has been in the Apple ecosystem for well over a decade, is pretty heavily technologically savvy, has many Apple devices and has for ages, well before the iPhone 3gs, iPad, and iPhone 6 explosions in Apple user volume.
If we could tap into 1% of the "new" Apple customer, we'd be sitting on a gold mine. Most of the new Apple users bought an iPhone and have just that so aren't relevant to this particular conversation, or got an iPhone or iPad and said "hey, this Mac thing might be pretty great" rather than the other way around like it was a decade ago.
This is the point. The article (and you) argues that the poll results are irrelevant (ie "overly conservative") because it does not represent the "larger user base needs". I argue that the AI demographic more closely matches that of Mac users than the larger "new Apple users" and therefore not necessarily "overly conservative".
If around a third of the prospective user base needs a feature it sure as hell isn't a minor feature. There isn't any "assumption that Windows compatibility is everything to everybody" but that a significant part of the Mac user base (say closer to 35% than 3.5%) wants that feature.
There is nothing an ARM based Mac does that an ARM based iPad Pro couldn't do with a couple further tweaks to iOS.
So why go through the disruption of a significant processor change and leave the Mac lineup half Intel and half ARM?
We didn't say they were irrelevant, and I'm not sure why you keep saying that. What they are is overly tilted in favor of virtualization and windows compatibility given what we know about who reads and interacts with AppleInsider. And, even given that, the majority still isn't doing it, and it isn't close.
At no point are we saying that there won't be disruption.
And as far as why do it? You just have to look to the last two major Mac processor shifts -- Vendors not delivering what they promise.
Again, how do you know the poll is “overly tilted in favor of virtualization and windows compatibility“ when those that read AI tend NOT to be the “new Apple” crowd and more of the “old Apple” crowd that owns more than just iOS devices? In other words the AI demographic more closely matches the Mac demographic than it does the “new Apple” demographic.
You keep harping on “majority” and trying to avoid admitting that 35% is significant enough percentage to warrant keeping that feature. Which is why you want to call 35% results to be “overly tilted”.
While intel faltered on 10nm it looks like Ice Lake will finally fulfill those promises and Intel has steadily improved power per watt on 14nm. Further it seems that Intel has been fairly responsive to Apple and my guess is that the customer that requested lakefiejld processor (bigLittle) from Intel was Apple. Or they will apply Foveros to stack something like T2 with Intel cores to reduce footprint.
Intel had a bad few years...just like with Itanium. It’s fashionable to bag on Intel right now and who knows maybe the new Ice Lakes won’t hit 18% IPC improvements. I’m guessing Intel is back on track
I've already addressed this in some depth, but here it is again: The AI demo is the high end, tech savvy part of the Mac market. You know, the part of the Mac market that knows that the feature exists, and has the aptitude and/or need to do so. The numbers are right in front of you. If 2/3 of the tech savvy users don't use it, do you honestly think that the new Apple users do in a higher percentage, or even the same? 100% of the Mac using population used USB-A when the 2016 MacBook Pro came out, and Apple shifted anyway. 100% of Mac users used ADB before the iMac, and Apple shifted anyway. Do you think that 35% is going to slow them down on a shift that they want to make to not be beholden to Intel?
Intel hasn't had a "bad few years." It's had a bad 2011-2019 and 10nm is literally, three years late. For the last eight years, it hasn't set a deadline for release that it's made. It was less time in 94, and in 06 where deadlines weren't being met when the other shifts were made.
We don't get to say what Apple keeps and what doesn't, and this still isn't some kind of pitch for Apple to do so. It is an observation about why it probably will. There are enough signposts on the road that an ARM Mac is coming. You're welcome to ignore them at your leisure.
Look, I get that you don't like it. I get that you don't want to see it. I get that you use it, and 35% of the AI demo does. I use it. But, none of that matters to Apple one bit, and you know it.
You’re ignoring a number of things. As I mentioned in a post that hasn’t been answered, a lot of Mac users boot into Windows because of games. That’s not a trivial number. It can easily account for a large part of that 35%. Not everyone who does something is tech savvy. Installing Windows isn’t that hard.
maybe there are signposts, and maybe it’s just a desire to see signposts. We don’t know.
if Apple doesn’t care, then why do they do it, and why do they maintain it?
They don't do a lot of maintenance on Boot Camp, because the thermal characteristics on the MacBook Pro running Windows are pretty bad. Also, until the hardware changed, the 13-inch MacBook Pro couldn't use an eGPU in it either.
Apple cares about what it wants to care about, The whims change, and have always done so.
And no, we aren't ignoring that. It isn't hard to do so, but there are technical hurdles, not the least of which is Windows not being free.
The question I have is, if you're kissing off 35% of your customers, where do the replacements come from? I doubt you can grow the base back by adding a bunch of ported iOS apps. I will probably be one of them because, although I stopped running Parallels a long time ago, I need the option for work stuff.
Interesting...... We have been a Windows-Free household for years, until recently:
My daughter's new job requires proprietary Windows software
Me - woodworking...
I have a woodworking hobby and native Mac apps like SketchUp or Mac/Java apps met my needs... Then I bought a woodworking CNC machine!
My long-term goal was to eventually run both CAD and CAM on an iPad Pro* -- It seemed like a natural to use the Apple Pencil for the CAD (Computer-Aided Design) and the iPad certainly had the horsepower to run the CAM (Computer-Aided Manufacturing) -- which is reading a text file (gcode) program and issue simple X,Y,Z axis commands to control the CNC machine (similar to Turtle Graphics). There are gcode interpreters for the Raspberry Pi.
To promote my long-term goal, I attempted to run entirely on the Mac. The CAM was easy, as the major software was a Java app available for Mac and Windows. The best Mac CAD app is Autodesk Fusion 360 -- but it has a very, very steep learning curve. There are a few others and some on-line apps, but they are limited.
Long story, shorter: The CAD scene is dominated by Vectric apps: VCarve and Aspire. These are Windows only!
So, I bit the bullet and bought:
VMWare Fusuion Emulator
VCarve Desktop CAD app
TotalAV Mac Virus Scanner
Yes, sadly, after a few days my Mac had been infected by viruses...
So, there it is: If you want to do CAM, you need to do Windows (and all that comes with it)...
Disruption anyone?
Hi Dick, I always enjoy and respect your comments. Coincidently I just had to buy a Dell laptop (high end one too) for my granddaughter who is starting University this year to study architecture and I hit the same issues with software requirements. It's all Windows.
I do have to chime in though, regarding the virus issue, I am surprised about the infections you got. I am a newbie to Windows (well since back in the early days) and have had Windows 10 running for the last two years on a few VMs, Boot Camp and since last year a Dell Server (2010 from eBay converted from Windows Server 16 to Windows 10 Pro by me) and a new Dell mid-tower with an i7 and GTX 1080 for games. I decided not to use any malware or anti-virus 3rd party application/utilities solely relying on Microsoft's built-in protections as I do with macOS and Apple's. So far not a single problem.
I am running the CNC stuff on an older iMac 27" running macOS High Sierra 10.13.6. It is not new enough to run anything later. This iMac was my daughters Mac and previously shared with her 3 kids. (Now they have Mac Pro portables). Anyway, we never experienced any viruses on this iMac before the recent VMWare/Windows install.
As a developer, I need both mac and windows support. To openly campaign to remove Windows compat is to be irresponsible to the marketplace. If users don't need Windows, that's fine. Don't penalize me for your lack of needs.
I don't think you, nor FredFref read the article.
Why does a dissenting opinion mean they didn't read the article? Maybe they read, disagreed with the basic premise "cross-platform software compatibility is now mostly irrelevant to the wider user base" and everything that follows. Especially since you had a poll, found 35% that said, yes they needed windows and then proceeded to hand wave that away as AI readers aren't a representative sample. Which begs the question of WHY RUN THE POLL IN THE FIRST PLACE?
The next assertion "for Apple's biggest user base, the need for Windows compatibility isn't the same as it is for the main readers of this site" is fabricated out of thin air and has zero supporting data. Whether true or not it's based on nothing but speculation.
If the primary uses of the Macs are Pro and everyone else migrates to iPads then a significant fraction of Mac users (dare I say 35%) will want x86 compatibility.
But, nope...because they disagree they didn't read the article.
That's not why I said that, and you know it. And, there's a lot more to this quote of mine than what you clipped out. And, I didn't even say anything about the ludicrous assumption that this article is a "campaign" to remove Windows compatibility.
It wasn't handwaved away. What it is, is that 35% of the user base that reads AI doesn't need it, which is an overly conservative estimate of what the larger user base needs and does with their machines, and you know this as well, based on your own interactions with the rest of the AI readership. And, even if you translate it literally, it does mean that the majority doesn't care about Windows on the Mac.
Why run the poll and then disregard it? So what if 35% isn't the majority? It's still a large part of the user base.
And how do you know that it is "an overly conservative estimate of what the larger user base needs"? On what data is this assertion based on? Why do you assume that the majority of your readers are pros? Why did you not include in your survey to self identify if they were pros or just general users? Never mind that these polls are generally horridly misleading anyway.
The article, and you, would like to make it seem like it's 0.35% of the user base to sell the idea that x86 compatibility is no longer needed. Apple may have a good idea as to the number but you don't. Moreover you ignored the entire enterprise market because it's inconvenient. Does IBM and other major Mac deployments believe x86 compatibility is irrelevant? I have no idea and neither do you. It would have been fairly easy to reach out to IT folks highlighted in past articles and ask "hey, is x86 compatibility important to your Mac enterprise deployment?"
Nope.
But hey...35% is an overly conservative estimate of what the larger user base needs...
Regarding the bolded section, we are, and your own supposition of how that is going so far is wrong because what they care about so far is iOS development and general productivity. We'll see how it goes in total when we're done.
In regards to our audience, exactly who do you think AppleInsider is read by far, far more? College grads with advanced degrees, industry folk, designers and whatnot, or the "new Apple user" which is iOS centric, where the iPhone is a halo for the Mac and not the other way around?
And the demographics for Mac users are what? Gee maybe folks who are "college grads with advanced degrees, industry folk, designers and whatnot"?
Nah.
I will assert, based on personal experience, that there are very few enterprise iOS developers that don't care about MS project, DOORS and a bevy of windows/x86 corporate tools...still dependent on Excel with macros. People send me a lot of stuff in Visio to boot. Also, most of us aren't iOS developers but enterprise developers and the docker tool chain is a significant part of devops.
Yeah. we're not done. So far, we've spoken to IBM, Cisco, and Deloitte. There are about eight more on the docket. The point of this article, stands, though, that there is a line, where below it, the need for Windows is non-existent.
And you have failed to show where that line is. Again, is the AI demographic you just stated significantly different than that of Mac users? Or have most of the "new Apple users" that don't frequent AI already moved to the iPad or never bought a Mac in the first place and have a windows laptop somewhere?
I'm not really sure what you're asking, here.
We didn't set out to draw precisely where the line is, so there is no failure to show something that we didn't set out to show. The piece is more to remind folks that there is a line, even though that there is the assumption that Windows compatibility is everything to everybody. We were pretty clear in the end of the piece in regards to the Mac Pro maybe never shifting.
Who do you think reads AI? Do you not think it's primarily Apple devout for decades? William addresses this in the piece, somewhat, in regards to who reads AI. Who reads AI should be apparent from the forums at least. Based on what we know, the "average" AI reader has been in the Apple ecosystem for well over a decade, is pretty heavily technologically savvy, has many Apple devices and has for ages, well before the iPhone 3gs, iPad, and iPhone 6 explosions in Apple user volume.
If we could tap into 1% of the "new" Apple customer, we'd be sitting on a gold mine. Most of the new Apple users bought an iPhone and have just that so aren't relevant to this particular conversation, or got an iPhone or iPad and said "hey, this Mac thing might be pretty great" rather than the other way around like it was a decade ago.
This is the point. The article (and you) argues that the poll results are irrelevant (ie "overly conservative") because it does not represent the "larger user base needs". I argue that the AI demographic more closely matches that of Mac users than the larger "new Apple users" and therefore not necessarily "overly conservative".
If around a third of the prospective user base needs a feature it sure as hell isn't a minor feature. There isn't any "assumption that Windows compatibility is everything to everybody" but that a significant part of the Mac user base (say closer to 35% than 3.5%) wants that feature.
There is nothing an ARM based Mac does that an ARM based iPad Pro couldn't do with a couple further tweaks to iOS.
So why go through the disruption of a significant processor change and leave the Mac lineup half Intel and half ARM?
We didn't say they were irrelevant, and I'm not sure why you keep saying that. What they are is overly tilted in favor of virtualization and windows compatibility given what we know about who reads and interacts with AppleInsider. And, even given that, the majority still isn't doing it, and it isn't close.
At no point are we saying that there won't be disruption.
And as far as why do it? You just have to look to the last two major Mac processor shifts -- Vendors not delivering what they promise.
Again, how do you know the poll is “overly tilted in favor of virtualization and windows compatibility“ when those that read AI tend NOT to be the “new Apple” crowd and more of the “old Apple” crowd that owns more than just iOS devices? In other words the AI demographic more closely matches the Mac demographic than it does the “new Apple” demographic.
You keep harping on “majority” and trying to avoid admitting that 35% is significant enough percentage to warrant keeping that feature. Which is why you want to call 35% results to be “overly tilted”.
While intel faltered on 10nm it looks like Ice Lake will finally fulfill those promises and Intel has steadily improved power per watt on 14nm. Further it seems that Intel has been fairly responsive to Apple and my guess is that the customer that requested lakefiejld processor (bigLittle) from Intel was Apple. Or they will apply Foveros to stack something like T2 with Intel cores to reduce footprint.
Intel had a bad few years...just like with Itanium. It’s fashionable to bag on Intel right now and who knows maybe the new Ice Lakes won’t hit 18% IPC improvements. I’m guessing Intel is back on track
I've already addressed this in some depth, but here it is again: The AI demo is the high end, tech savvy part of the Mac market. You know, the part of the Mac market that knows that the feature exists, and has the aptitude and/or need to do so. The numbers are right in front of you. If 2/3 of the tech savvy users don't use it, do you honestly think that the new Apple users do in a higher percentage, or even the same? 100% of the Mac using population used USB-A when the 2016 MacBook Pro came out, and Apple shifted anyway. 100% of Mac users used ADB before the iMac, and Apple shifted anyway. Do you think that 35% is going to slow them down on a shift that they want to make to not be beholden to Intel?
Intel hasn't had a "bad few years." It's had a bad 2011-2019 and 10nm is literally, three years late. For the last eight years, it hasn't set a deadline for release that it's made. It was less time in 94, and in 06 where deadlines weren't being met when the other shifts were made.
We don't get to say what Apple keeps and what doesn't, and this still isn't some kind of pitch for Apple to do so. It is an observation about why it probably will. There are enough signposts on the road that an ARM Mac is coming. You're welcome to ignore them at your leisure.
Look, I get that you don't like it. I get that you don't want to see it. I get that you use it, and 35% of the AI demo does. I use it. But, none of that matters to Apple one bit, and you know it.
I've read the back and forth among respected members/veterans of the AI community. I, also go way back with Apple: 1978. I've watched Apple release, then deprecate too many things to count -- No Sure Shitlock!
There are a lot of good cases presented, both for and against releasing a non-Intel Mac. My gut tells me that Apple will release a non-Intel Mac (in addition to their Intel Macs) -- because it takes them in a direction (total control) they want to go. Apple can walk, chew gum and juggle at the same time, so they're capable of it.
If they fail, they will have pissed away several 10s or hundreds of millions of dollars -- but, even that won't be a total loss.
As for the non-Intel chip, I don't think it will be an A chip... There are several reasons: 1) They can produce a chip customized to what Macs do/need (and then some); 2) From a PR perspective it is important to release a non-Intel Mac with a serious commitment and raison d'être.
I've read the back and forth among respected members/veterans of the AI community. I, also go way back with Apple: 1978. I've watched Apple release, then deprecate too many things to count -- No Sure Shitlock!
But, my gut tells me that Apple will release a non-Intel Mac (in addition to their Intel Macs) -- because it takes them in a direction (total control) they want to go. Apple can walk, chew gum and juggle at the same time, so they're capable of it.
If they fail, they will have pissed away several 10s or hundreds of millions of dollars -- but, even that won't be a total loss.
As for the non-Intel chip, I don't think it will be an A chip... There are several reasons: 1) They can produce a chip customized to what Macs do/need (and then some); 2) From a PR perspective it is important to release a non-Intel Mac with a serious commitment and raison d'être.
I find it weird that so many people on this forum feel that for an ARM-based Mac to exist that an Intel-based Mac can't -or- that so many can only see it within the scope of an A-series chip, which often gets argued as not having enough RAM or memory bandwidth compared be in a traditional PC.
I've read the back and forth among respected members/veterans of the AI community. I, also go way back with Apple: 1978. I've watched Apple release, then deprecate too many things to count -- No Sure Shitlock!
But, my gut tells me that Apple will release a non-Intel Mac (in addition to their Intel Macs) -- because it takes them in a direction (total control) they want to go. Apple can walk, chew gum and juggle at the same time, so they're capable of it.
If they fail, they will have pissed away several 10s or hundreds of millions of dollars -- but, even that won't be a total loss.
As for the non-Intel chip, I don't think it will be an A chip... There are several reasons: 1) They can produce a chip customized to what Macs do/need (and then some); 2) From a PR perspective it is important to release a non-Intel Mac with a serious commitment and raison d'être.
I find it weird that so many people on this forum can't grasp that for an ARM-based Mac (or Mac-like traditional PC) to exist that there would be no Intel-based Macs or that it would have to be an A-series chip which often gets argued as not having enough RAM or memory bandwidth to be in a traditional PC.
As a developer, I need both mac and windows support. To openly campaign to remove Windows compat is to be irresponsible to the marketplace. If users don't need Windows, that's fine. Don't penalize me for your lack of needs.
I don't think you, nor FredFref read the article.
Why does a dissenting opinion mean they didn't read the article? Maybe they read, disagreed with the basic premise "cross-platform software compatibility is now mostly irrelevant to the wider user base" and everything that follows. Especially since you had a poll, found 35% that said, yes they needed windows and then proceeded to hand wave that away as AI readers aren't a representative sample. Which begs the question of WHY RUN THE POLL IN THE FIRST PLACE?
The next assertion "for Apple's biggest user base, the need for Windows compatibility isn't the same as it is for the main readers of this site" is fabricated out of thin air and has zero supporting data. Whether true or not it's based on nothing but speculation.
If the primary uses of the Macs are Pro and everyone else migrates to iPads then a significant fraction of Mac users (dare I say 35%) will want x86 compatibility.
But, nope...because they disagree they didn't read the article.
That's not why I said that, and you know it. And, there's a lot more to this quote of mine than what you clipped out. And, I didn't even say anything about the ludicrous assumption that this article is a "campaign" to remove Windows compatibility.
It wasn't handwaved away. What it is, is that 35% of the user base that reads AI doesn't need it, which is an overly conservative estimate of what the larger user base needs and does with their machines, and you know this as well, based on your own interactions with the rest of the AI readership. And, even if you translate it literally, it does mean that the majority doesn't care about Windows on the Mac.
Why run the poll and then disregard it? So what if 35% isn't the majority? It's still a large part of the user base.
And how do you know that it is "an overly conservative estimate of what the larger user base needs"? On what data is this assertion based on? Why do you assume that the majority of your readers are pros? Why did you not include in your survey to self identify if they were pros or just general users? Never mind that these polls are generally horridly misleading anyway.
The article, and you, would like to make it seem like it's 0.35% of the user base to sell the idea that x86 compatibility is no longer needed. Apple may have a good idea as to the number but you don't. Moreover you ignored the entire enterprise market because it's inconvenient. Does IBM and other major Mac deployments believe x86 compatibility is irrelevant? I have no idea and neither do you. It would have been fairly easy to reach out to IT folks highlighted in past articles and ask "hey, is x86 compatibility important to your Mac enterprise deployment?"
Nope.
But hey...35% is an overly conservative estimate of what the larger user base needs...
Regarding the bolded section, we are, and your own supposition of how that is going so far is wrong because what they care about so far is iOS development and general productivity. We'll see how it goes in total when we're done.
In regards to our audience, exactly who do you think AppleInsider is read by far, far more? College grads with advanced degrees, industry folk, designers and whatnot, or the "new Apple user" which is iOS centric, where the iPhone is a halo for the Mac and not the other way around?
And the demographics for Mac users are what? Gee maybe folks who are "college grads with advanced degrees, industry folk, designers and whatnot"?
Nah.
I will assert, based on personal experience, that there are very few enterprise iOS developers that don't care about MS project, DOORS and a bevy of windows/x86 corporate tools...still dependent on Excel with macros. People send me a lot of stuff in Visio to boot. Also, most of us aren't iOS developers but enterprise developers and the docker tool chain is a significant part of devops.
Yeah. we're not done. So far, we've spoken to IBM, Cisco, and Deloitte. There are about eight more on the docket. The point of this article, stands, though, that there is a line, where below it, the need for Windows is non-existent.
And you have failed to show where that line is. Again, is the AI demographic you just stated significantly different than that of Mac users? Or have most of the "new Apple users" that don't frequent AI already moved to the iPad or never bought a Mac in the first place and have a windows laptop somewhere?
I'm not really sure what you're asking, here.
We didn't set out to draw precisely where the line is, so there is no failure to show something that we didn't set out to show. The piece is more to remind folks that there is a line, even though that there is the assumption that Windows compatibility is everything to everybody. We were pretty clear in the end of the piece in regards to the Mac Pro maybe never shifting.
Who do you think reads AI? Do you not think it's primarily Apple devout for decades? William addresses this in the piece, somewhat, in regards to who reads AI. Who reads AI should be apparent from the forums at least. Based on what we know, the "average" AI reader has been in the Apple ecosystem for well over a decade, is pretty heavily technologically savvy, has many Apple devices and has for ages, well before the iPhone 3gs, iPad, and iPhone 6 explosions in Apple user volume.
If we could tap into 1% of the "new" Apple customer, we'd be sitting on a gold mine. Most of the new Apple users bought an iPhone and have just that so aren't relevant to this particular conversation, or got an iPhone or iPad and said "hey, this Mac thing might be pretty great" rather than the other way around like it was a decade ago.
This is the point. The article (and you) argues that the poll results are irrelevant (ie "overly conservative") because it does not represent the "larger user base needs". I argue that the AI demographic more closely matches that of Mac users than the larger "new Apple users" and therefore not necessarily "overly conservative".
If around a third of the prospective user base needs a feature it sure as hell isn't a minor feature. There isn't any "assumption that Windows compatibility is everything to everybody" but that a significant part of the Mac user base (say closer to 35% than 3.5%) wants that feature.
There is nothing an ARM based Mac does that an ARM based iPad Pro couldn't do with a couple further tweaks to iOS.
So why go through the disruption of a significant processor change and leave the Mac lineup half Intel and half ARM?
We didn't say they were irrelevant, and I'm not sure why you keep saying that. What they are is overly tilted in favor of virtualization and windows compatibility given what we know about who reads and interacts with AppleInsider. And, even given that, the majority still isn't doing it, and it isn't close.
At no point are we saying that there won't be disruption.
And as far as why do it? You just have to look to the last two major Mac processor shifts -- Vendors not delivering what they promise.
Again, how do you know the poll is “overly tilted in favor of virtualization and windows compatibility“ when those that read AI tend NOT to be the “new Apple” crowd and more of the “old Apple” crowd that owns more than just iOS devices? In other words the AI demographic more closely matches the Mac demographic than it does the “new Apple” demographic.
You keep harping on “majority” and trying to avoid admitting that 35% is significant enough percentage to warrant keeping that feature. Which is why you want to call 35% results to be “overly tilted”.
While intel faltered on 10nm it looks like Ice Lake will finally fulfill those promises and Intel has steadily improved power per watt on 14nm. Further it seems that Intel has been fairly responsive to Apple and my guess is that the customer that requested lakefiejld processor (bigLittle) from Intel was Apple. Or they will apply Foveros to stack something like T2 with Intel cores to reduce footprint.
Intel had a bad few years...just like with Itanium. It’s fashionable to bag on Intel right now and who knows maybe the new Ice Lakes won’t hit 18% IPC improvements. I’m guessing Intel is back on track
I've already addressed this in some depth, but here it is again: The AI demo is the high end, tech savvy part of the Mac market. You know, the part of the Mac market that knows that the feature exists, and has the aptitude and/or need to do so. The numbers are right in front of you. If 2/3 of the tech savvy users don't use it, do you honestly think that the new Apple users do in a higher percentage, or even the same? 100% of the Mac using population used USB-A when the 2016 MacBook Pro came out, and Apple shifted anyway. 100% of Mac users used ADB before the iMac, and Apple shifted anyway. Do you think that 35% is going to slow them down on a shift that they want to make to not be beholden to Intel?
Intel hasn't had a "bad few years." It's had a bad 2011-2019 and 10nm is literally, three years late. For the last eight years, it hasn't set a deadline for release that it's made. It was less time in 94, and in 06 where deadlines weren't being met when the other shifts were made.
We don't get to say what Apple keeps and what doesn't, and this still isn't some kind of pitch for Apple to do so. It is an observation about why it probably will. There are enough signposts on the road that an ARM Mac is coming. You're welcome to ignore them at your leisure.
Look, I get that you don't like it. I get that you don't want to see it. I get that you use it, and 35% of the AI demo does. I use it. But, none of that matters to Apple one bit, and you know it.
You’re ignoring a number of things. As I mentioned in a post that hasn’t been answered, a lot of Mac users boot into Windows because of games. That’s not a trivial number. It can easily account for a large part of that 35%. Not everyone who does something is tech savvy. Installing Windows isn’t that hard.
maybe there are signposts, and maybe it’s just a desire to see signposts. We don’t know.
if Apple doesn’t care, then why do they do it, and why do they maintain it?
They don't do a lot of maintenance on Boot Camp, because the thermal characteristics on the MacBook Pro running Windows are pretty bad. Also, until the hardware changed, the 13-inch MacBook Pro couldn't use an eGPU in it either.
Apple cares about what it wants to care about, The whims change, and have always done so.
And no, we aren't ignoring that. It isn't hard to do so, but there are technical hurdles, not the least of which is Windows not being free.
Pretty sure Windows just causes anything to run hot. Running Linux natively however doesn't have the same issues, and there are no Apple drivers for that at all. Even running Windows in a VM pins one core to 50% most of the time...
I've read the back and forth among respected members/veterans of the AI community. I, also go way back with Apple: 1978. I've watched Apple release, then deprecate too many things to count -- No Sure Shitlock!
There are a lot of good cases presented, both for and against releasing a non-Intel Mac. My gut tells me that Apple will release a non-Intel Mac (in addition to their Intel Macs) -- because it takes them in a direction (total control) they want to go. Apple can walk, chew gum and juggle at the same time, so they're capable of it.
If they fail, they will have pissed away several 10s or hundreds of millions of dollars -- but, even that won't be a total loss.
As for the non-Intel chip, I don't think it will be an A chip... There are several reasons: 1) They can produce a chip customized to what Macs do/need (and then some); 2) From a PR perspective it is important to release a non-Intel Mac with a serious commitment and raison d'être.
It seems to me that the natural path of evolution would be to grow iPadOS into the "Mac-like" user experience on a laptop form factor. This way, Apple could continue to evolve macOS on the existing platform, without losing software/VM compatibility, etc. Let Macs stay Macs. (Although I still think being prepared to have macOS run on other CPUs is a good idea).
I've read the back and forth among respected members/veterans of the AI community. I, also go way back with Apple: 1978. I've watched Apple release, then deprecate too many things to count -- No Sure Shitlock!
There are a lot of good cases presented, both for and against releasing a non-Intel Mac. My gut tells me that Apple will release a non-Intel Mac (in addition to their Intel Macs) -- because it takes them in a direction (total control) they want to go. Apple can walk, chew gum and juggle at the same time, so they're capable of it.
If they fail, they will have pissed away several 10s or hundreds of millions of dollars -- but, even that won't be a total loss.
As for the non-Intel chip, I don't think it will be an A chip... There are several reasons: 1) They can produce a chip customized to what Macs do/need (and then some); 2) From a PR perspective it is important to release a non-Intel Mac with a serious commitment and raison d'être.
It seems to me that the natural path of evolution would be to grow iPadOS into the "Mac-like" user experience on a laptop form factor. This way, Apple could continue to evolve macOS on the existing platform, without losing software/VM compatibility, etc. Let Macs stay Macs. (Although I still think being prepared to have macOS run on other CPUs is a good idea).
IMO, that would defeat the purpose of introducing a non-Intel Mac as described above in my last paragraph. Today, every current Mac can NOT run all the Mac software available because of hardware differences, processing power, upgrade ability, market position... A non-Intel Mac, running macOS, competitively priced — would be an attractive entry machine (again, IMO).
We live in an era of [computer] expendability — you don’t/can’t upgrade your phone [computer] — rather, you buy on time, then upgrade (replace it) every 1-2 years. That’s how I see a non-Intel Mac being marketed.
As a developer, I need both mac and windows support. To openly campaign to remove Windows compat is to be irresponsible to the marketplace. If users don't need Windows, that's fine. Don't penalize me for your lack of needs.
I don't think you, nor FredFref read the article.
Why does a dissenting opinion mean they didn't read the article? Maybe they read, disagreed with the basic premise "cross-platform software compatibility is now mostly irrelevant to the wider user base" and everything that follows. Especially since you had a poll, found 35% that said, yes they needed windows and then proceeded to hand wave that away as AI readers aren't a representative sample. Which begs the question of WHY RUN THE POLL IN THE FIRST PLACE?
The next assertion "for Apple's biggest user base, the need for Windows compatibility isn't the same as it is for the main readers of this site" is fabricated out of thin air and has zero supporting data. Whether true or not it's based on nothing but speculation.
If the primary uses of the Macs are Pro and everyone else migrates to iPads then a significant fraction of Mac users (dare I say 35%) will want x86 compatibility.
But, nope...because they disagree they didn't read the article.
That's not why I said that, and you know it. And, there's a lot more to this quote of mine than what you clipped out. And, I didn't even say anything about the ludicrous assumption that this article is a "campaign" to remove Windows compatibility.
It wasn't handwaved away. What it is, is that 35% of the user base that reads AI doesn't need it, which is an overly conservative estimate of what the larger user base needs and does with their machines, and you know this as well, based on your own interactions with the rest of the AI readership. And, even if you translate it literally, it does mean that the majority doesn't care about Windows on the Mac.
Why run the poll and then disregard it? So what if 35% isn't the majority? It's still a large part of the user base.
And how do you know that it is "an overly conservative estimate of what the larger user base needs"? On what data is this assertion based on? Why do you assume that the majority of your readers are pros? Why did you not include in your survey to self identify if they were pros or just general users? Never mind that these polls are generally horridly misleading anyway.
The article, and you, would like to make it seem like it's 0.35% of the user base to sell the idea that x86 compatibility is no longer needed. Apple may have a good idea as to the number but you don't. Moreover you ignored the entire enterprise market because it's inconvenient. Does IBM and other major Mac deployments believe x86 compatibility is irrelevant? I have no idea and neither do you. It would have been fairly easy to reach out to IT folks highlighted in past articles and ask "hey, is x86 compatibility important to your Mac enterprise deployment?"
Nope.
But hey...35% is an overly conservative estimate of what the larger user base needs...
Regarding the bolded section, we are, and your own supposition of how that is going so far is wrong because what they care about so far is iOS development and general productivity. We'll see how it goes in total when we're done.
In regards to our audience, exactly who do you think AppleInsider is read by far, far more? College grads with advanced degrees, industry folk, designers and whatnot, or the "new Apple user" which is iOS centric, where the iPhone is a halo for the Mac and not the other way around?
And the demographics for Mac users are what? Gee maybe folks who are "college grads with advanced degrees, industry folk, designers and whatnot"?
Nah.
I will assert, based on personal experience, that there are very few enterprise iOS developers that don't care about MS project, DOORS and a bevy of windows/x86 corporate tools...still dependent on Excel with macros. People send me a lot of stuff in Visio to boot. Also, most of us aren't iOS developers but enterprise developers and the docker tool chain is a significant part of devops.
Yeah. we're not done. So far, we've spoken to IBM, Cisco, and Deloitte. There are about eight more on the docket. The point of this article, stands, though, that there is a line, where below it, the need for Windows is non-existent.
And you have failed to show where that line is. Again, is the AI demographic you just stated significantly different than that of Mac users? Or have most of the "new Apple users" that don't frequent AI already moved to the iPad or never bought a Mac in the first place and have a windows laptop somewhere?
I'm not really sure what you're asking, here.
We didn't set out to draw precisely where the line is, so there is no failure to show something that we didn't set out to show. The piece is more to remind folks that there is a line, even though that there is the assumption that Windows compatibility is everything to everybody. We were pretty clear in the end of the piece in regards to the Mac Pro maybe never shifting.
Who do you think reads AI? Do you not think it's primarily Apple devout for decades? William addresses this in the piece, somewhat, in regards to who reads AI. Who reads AI should be apparent from the forums at least. Based on what we know, the "average" AI reader has been in the Apple ecosystem for well over a decade, is pretty heavily technologically savvy, has many Apple devices and has for ages, well before the iPhone 3gs, iPad, and iPhone 6 explosions in Apple user volume.
If we could tap into 1% of the "new" Apple customer, we'd be sitting on a gold mine. Most of the new Apple users bought an iPhone and have just that so aren't relevant to this particular conversation, or got an iPhone or iPad and said "hey, this Mac thing might be pretty great" rather than the other way around like it was a decade ago.
This is the point. The article (and you) argues that the poll results are irrelevant (ie "overly conservative") because it does not represent the "larger user base needs". I argue that the AI demographic more closely matches that of Mac users than the larger "new Apple users" and therefore not necessarily "overly conservative".
If around a third of the prospective user base needs a feature it sure as hell isn't a minor feature. There isn't any "assumption that Windows compatibility is everything to everybody" but that a significant part of the Mac user base (say closer to 35% than 3.5%) wants that feature.
There is nothing an ARM based Mac does that an ARM based iPad Pro couldn't do with a couple further tweaks to iOS.
So why go through the disruption of a significant processor change and leave the Mac lineup half Intel and half ARM?
iOS is macOS. The platform is already split between ARM and INTEL and has been for over a decade. Apple is now moving to unify software development across the architectures and that will provide the path for a smooth transition, if and when it becomes necessary.
Apple’s efforts to unify software development across architectures is actually a clear proof of that CPU dichotomy will persist for years, not a proof of the opposite, I.e. transitioning from one architecture to the other. Apple wants to provide a CPU-agnostic way of development. Only if CPU differences will be so big and crucial that you may need to develop in CPU-agnostic way.
I really doubt Apple will brand a machine that is pure ARM a Mac.
Add Sidecar in iPadOS and take the idea a couple of versions of development time. Apple could then relegate MacOS to a headless backroom box in a rack if you still have a workflow that needs in. Or an iMac in your home office. A Pro MacBook for road warriors.
Make everything else a new family starting with iPadPro and adding bigger and bigger screen sizes as the GPU can drive them.
The question I have is, if you're kissing off 35% of your customers, where do the replacements come from? I doubt you can grow the base back by adding a bunch of ported iOS apps. I will probably be one of them because, although I stopped running Parallels a long time ago, I need the option for work stuff.
Interesting...... We have been a Windows-Free household for years, until recently:
My daughter's new job requires proprietary Windows software
Me - woodworking...
I have a woodworking hobby and native Mac apps like SketchUp or Mac/Java apps met my needs... Then I bought a woodworking CNC machine!
My long-term goal was to eventually run both CAD and CAM on an iPad Pro* -- It seemed like a natural to use the Apple Pencil for the CAD (Computer-Aided Design) and the iPad certainly had the horsepower to run the CAM (Computer-Aided Manufacturing) -- which is reading a text file (gcode) program and issue simple X,Y,Z axis commands to control the CNC machine (similar to Turtle Graphics). There are gcode interpreters for the Raspberry Pi.
To promote my long-term goal, I attempted to run entirely on the Mac. The CAM was easy, as the major software was a Java app available for Mac and Windows. The best Mac CAD app is Autodesk Fusion 360 -- but it has a very, very steep learning curve. There are a few others and some on-line apps, but they are limited.
Long story, shorter: The CAD scene is dominated by Vectric apps: VCarve and Aspire. These are Windows only!
So, I bit the bullet and bought:
VMWare Fusuion Emulator
VCarve Desktop CAD app
TotalAV Mac Virus Scanner
Yes, sadly, after a few days my Mac had been infected by viruses...
So, there it is: If you want to do CAM, you need to do Windows (and all that comes with it)...
Disruption anyone?
Hi Dick, I always enjoy and respect your comments. Coincidently I just had to buy a Dell laptop (high end one too) for my granddaughter who is starting University this year to study architecture and I hit the same issues with software requirements. It's all Windows.
I do have to chime in though, regarding the virus issue, I am surprised about the infections you got. I am a newbie to Windows (well since back in the early days) and have had Windows 10 running for the last two years on a few VMs, Boot Camp and since last year a Dell Server (2010 from eBay converted from Windows Server 16 to Windows 10 Pro by me) and a new Dell mid-tower with an i7 and GTX 1080 for games. I decided not to use any malware or anti-virus 3rd party application/utilities solely relying on Microsoft's built-in protections as I do with macOS and Apple's. So far not a single problem.
VMWare for Mac is a virtual machine not an emulator. Huge difference.
Hi Dick, what virus did you get? Was it a PC and/or Mac virus (malware)? My Mac virus scanner detects all kinds of malware in my email attachments but that doesn't mean my computer is infected. Most of them are Java which is not installed on my Mac or PC viruses which have no access to my PC VM. If something requires Java I always run it in a VM. I have several anti-virus packages installed on my Mac (on demand scanning), but it's been years since I've seen anything other than a common (sandboxed) browser hijack that comes from some freeware/shareware company.
I haven't yet seen a virus on one of my windows 10 PC VMs but an infection is highly unlikely if it's not used for web browsing or email (spam).
I'm guessing it was Java not Windows which exposed you to malware. Let me know, I'm interested in hearing about it.
As a developer, I need both mac and windows support. To openly campaign to remove Windows compat is to be irresponsible to the marketplace. If users don't need Windows, that's fine. Don't penalize me for your lack of needs.
I don't think you, nor FredFref read the article.
Why does a dissenting opinion mean they didn't read the article? Maybe they read, disagreed with the basic premise "cross-platform software compatibility is now mostly irrelevant to the wider user base" and everything that follows. Especially since you had a poll, found 35% that said, yes they needed windows and then proceeded to hand wave that away as AI readers aren't a representative sample. Which begs the question of WHY RUN THE POLL IN THE FIRST PLACE?
The next assertion "for Apple's biggest user base, the need for Windows compatibility isn't the same as it is for the main readers of this site" is fabricated out of thin air and has zero supporting data. Whether true or not it's based on nothing but speculation.
If the primary uses of the Macs are Pro and everyone else migrates to iPads then a significant fraction of Mac users (dare I say 35%) will want x86 compatibility.
But, nope...because they disagree they didn't read the article.
That's not why I said that, and you know it. And, there's a lot more to this quote of mine than what you clipped out. And, I didn't even say anything about the ludicrous assumption that this article is a "campaign" to remove Windows compatibility.
It wasn't handwaved away. What it is, is that 35% of the user base that reads AI doesn't need it, which is an overly conservative estimate of what the larger user base needs and does with their machines, and you know this as well, based on your own interactions with the rest of the AI readership. And, even if you translate it literally, it does mean that the majority doesn't care about Windows on the Mac.
Why run the poll and then disregard it? So what if 35% isn't the majority? It's still a large part of the user base.
And how do you know that it is "an overly conservative estimate of what the larger user base needs"? On what data is this assertion based on? Why do you assume that the majority of your readers are pros? Why did you not include in your survey to self identify if they were pros or just general users? Never mind that these polls are generally horridly misleading anyway.
The article, and you, would like to make it seem like it's 0.35% of the user base to sell the idea that x86 compatibility is no longer needed. Apple may have a good idea as to the number but you don't. Moreover you ignored the entire enterprise market because it's inconvenient. Does IBM and other major Mac deployments believe x86 compatibility is irrelevant? I have no idea and neither do you. It would have been fairly easy to reach out to IT folks highlighted in past articles and ask "hey, is x86 compatibility important to your Mac enterprise deployment?"
Nope.
But hey...35% is an overly conservative estimate of what the larger user base needs...
Regarding the bolded section, we are, and your own supposition of how that is going so far is wrong because what they care about so far is iOS development and general productivity. We'll see how it goes in total when we're done.
In regards to our audience, exactly who do you think AppleInsider is read by far, far more? College grads with advanced degrees, industry folk, designers and whatnot, or the "new Apple user" which is iOS centric, where the iPhone is a halo for the Mac and not the other way around?
And the demographics for Mac users are what? Gee maybe folks who are "college grads with advanced degrees, industry folk, designers and whatnot"?
Nah.
I will assert, based on personal experience, that there are very few enterprise iOS developers that don't care about MS project, DOORS and a bevy of windows/x86 corporate tools...still dependent on Excel with macros. People send me a lot of stuff in Visio to boot. Also, most of us aren't iOS developers but enterprise developers and the docker tool chain is a significant part of devops.
Yeah. we're not done. So far, we've spoken to IBM, Cisco, and Deloitte. There are about eight more on the docket. The point of this article, stands, though, that there is a line, where below it, the need for Windows is non-existent.
And you have failed to show where that line is. Again, is the AI demographic you just stated significantly different than that of Mac users? Or have most of the "new Apple users" that don't frequent AI already moved to the iPad or never bought a Mac in the first place and have a windows laptop somewhere?
I'm not really sure what you're asking, here.
We didn't set out to draw precisely where the line is, so there is no failure to show something that we didn't set out to show. The piece is more to remind folks that there is a line, even though that there is the assumption that Windows compatibility is everything to everybody. We were pretty clear in the end of the piece in regards to the Mac Pro maybe never shifting.
Who do you think reads AI? Do you not think it's primarily Apple devout for decades? William addresses this in the piece, somewhat, in regards to who reads AI. Who reads AI should be apparent from the forums at least. Based on what we know, the "average" AI reader has been in the Apple ecosystem for well over a decade, is pretty heavily technologically savvy, has many Apple devices and has for ages, well before the iPhone 3gs, iPad, and iPhone 6 explosions in Apple user volume.
If we could tap into 1% of the "new" Apple customer, we'd be sitting on a gold mine. Most of the new Apple users bought an iPhone and have just that so aren't relevant to this particular conversation, or got an iPhone or iPad and said "hey, this Mac thing might be pretty great" rather than the other way around like it was a decade ago.
This is the point. The article (and you) argues that the poll results are irrelevant (ie "overly conservative") because it does not represent the "larger user base needs". I argue that the AI demographic more closely matches that of Mac users than the larger "new Apple users" and therefore not necessarily "overly conservative".
If around a third of the prospective user base needs a feature it sure as hell isn't a minor feature. There isn't any "assumption that Windows compatibility is everything to everybody" but that a significant part of the Mac user base (say closer to 35% than 3.5%) wants that feature.
There is nothing an ARM based Mac does that an ARM based iPad Pro couldn't do with a couple further tweaks to iOS.
So why go through the disruption of a significant processor change and leave the Mac lineup half Intel and half ARM?
We didn't say they were irrelevant, and I'm not sure why you keep saying that. What they are is overly tilted in favor of virtualization and windows compatibility given what we know about who reads and interacts with AppleInsider. And, even given that, the majority still isn't doing it, and it isn't close.
At no point are we saying that there won't be disruption.
And as far as why do it? You just have to look to the last two major Mac processor shifts -- Vendors not delivering what they promise.
Again, how do you know the poll is “overly tilted in favor of virtualization and windows compatibility“ when those that read AI tend NOT to be the “new Apple” crowd and more of the “old Apple” crowd that owns more than just iOS devices? In other words the AI demographic more closely matches the Mac demographic than it does the “new Apple” demographic.
You keep harping on “majority” and trying to avoid admitting that 35% is significant enough percentage to warrant keeping that feature. Which is why you want to call 35% results to be “overly tilted”.
While intel faltered on 10nm it looks like Ice Lake will finally fulfill those promises and Intel has steadily improved power per watt on 14nm. Further it seems that Intel has been fairly responsive to Apple and my guess is that the customer that requested lakefiejld processor (bigLittle) from Intel was Apple. Or they will apply Foveros to stack something like T2 with Intel cores to reduce footprint.
Intel had a bad few years...just like with Itanium. It’s fashionable to bag on Intel right now and who knows maybe the new Ice Lakes won’t hit 18% IPC improvements. I’m guessing Intel is back on track
I've already addressed this in some depth, but here it is again: The AI demo is the high end, tech savvy part of the Mac market. You know, the part of the Mac market that knows that the feature exists, and has the aptitude and/or need to do so. The numbers are right in front of you. If 2/3 of the tech savvy users don't use it, do you honestly think that the new Apple users do in a higher percentage, or even the same? 100% of the Mac using population used USB-A when the 2016 MacBook Pro came out, and Apple shifted anyway. 100% of Mac users used ADB before the iMac, and Apple shifted anyway. Do you think that 35% is going to slow them down on a shift that they want to make to not be beholden to Intel?
Intel hasn't had a "bad few years." It's had a bad 2011-2019 and 10nm is literally, three years late. For the last eight years, it hasn't set a deadline for release that it's made. It was less time in 94, and in 06 where deadlines weren't being met when the other shifts were made.
We don't get to say what Apple keeps and what doesn't, and this still isn't some kind of pitch for Apple to do so. It is an observation about why it probably will. There are enough signposts on the road that an ARM Mac is coming. You're welcome to ignore them at your leisure.
Look, I get that you don't like it. I get that you don't want to see it. I get that you use it, and 35% of the AI demo does. I use it. But, none of that matters to Apple one bit, and you know it.
You’re ignoring a number of things. As I mentioned in a post that hasn’t been answered, a lot of Mac users boot into Windows because of games. That’s not a trivial number. It can easily account for a large part of that 35%. Not everyone who does something is tech savvy. Installing Windows isn’t that hard.
maybe there are signposts, and maybe it’s just a desire to see signposts. We don’t know.
if Apple doesn’t care, then why do they do it, and why do they maintain it?
They don't do a lot of maintenance on Boot Camp, because the thermal characteristics on the MacBook Pro running Windows are pretty bad. Also, until the hardware changed, the 13-inch MacBook Pro couldn't use an eGPU in it either.
Apple cares about what it wants to care about, The whims change, and have always done so.
And no, we aren't ignoring that. It isn't hard to do so, but there are technical hurdles, not the least of which is Windows not being free.
Pretty sure Windows just causes anything to run hot. Running Linux natively however doesn't have the same issues, and there are no Apple drivers for that at all. Even running Windows in a VM pins one core to 50% most of the time...
I guess that depends on what the PC is (CPU, GPU etc.) and what it is used for. An i5 gaming will get pretty hot. My 2010 Dell Server (Xeon) running a massive MySQL database 24/7 served on the WWW barely gets warm.
The question I have is, if you're kissing off 35% of your customers, where do the replacements come from? I doubt you can grow the base back by adding a bunch of ported iOS apps. I will probably be one of them because, although I stopped running Parallels a long time ago, I need the option for work stuff.
Interesting...... We have been a Windows-Free household for years, until recently:
My daughter's new job requires proprietary Windows software
Me - woodworking...
I have a woodworking hobby and native Mac apps like SketchUp or Mac/Java apps met my needs... Then I bought a woodworking CNC machine!
My long-term goal was to eventually run both CAD and CAM on an iPad Pro* -- It seemed like a natural to use the Apple Pencil for the CAD (Computer-Aided Design) and the iPad certainly had the horsepower to run the CAM (Computer-Aided Manufacturing) -- which is reading a text file (gcode) program and issue simple X,Y,Z axis commands to control the CNC machine (similar to Turtle Graphics). There are gcode interpreters for the Raspberry Pi.
To promote my long-term goal, I attempted to run entirely on the Mac. The CAM was easy, as the major software was a Java app available for Mac and Windows. The best Mac CAD app is Autodesk Fusion 360 -- but it has a very, very steep learning curve. There are a few others and some on-line apps, but they are limited.
Long story, shorter: The CAD scene is dominated by Vectric apps: VCarve and Aspire. These are Windows only!
So, I bit the bullet and bought:
VMWare Fusuion Emulator
VCarve Desktop CAD app
TotalAV Mac Virus Scanner
Yes, sadly, after a few days my Mac had been infected by viruses...
So, there it is: If you want to do CAM, you need to do Windows (and all that comes with it)...
Disruption anyone?
Hi Dick, I always enjoy and respect your comments. Coincidently I just had to buy a Dell laptop (high end one too) for my granddaughter who is starting University this year to study architecture and I hit the same issues with software requirements. It's all Windows.
I do have to chime in though, regarding the virus issue, I am surprised about the infections you got. I am a newbie to Windows (well since back in the early days) and have had Windows 10 running for the last two years on a few VMs, Boot Camp and since last year a Dell Server (2010 from eBay converted from Windows Server 16 to Windows 10 Pro by me) and a new Dell mid-tower with an i7 and GTX 1080 for games. I decided not to use any malware or anti-virus 3rd party application/utilities solely relying on Microsoft's built-in protections as I do with macOS and Apple's. So far not a single problem.
VMWare for Mac is a virtual machine not an emulator. Huge difference.
Hi Dick, what virus did you get? Was it a PC and/or Mac virus (malware)? My Mac virus scanner detects all kinds of malware in my email attachments but that doesn't mean my computer is infected. Most of them are Java which is not installed on my Mac or PC viruses which have no access to my PC VM. If something requires Java I always run it in a VM. I have several anti-virus packages installed on my Mac (on demand scanning), but it's been years since I've seen anything other than a common (sandboxed) browser hijack that comes from some freeware/shareware company.
I haven't yet seen a virus on one of my windows 10 PC VMs but an infection is highly unlikely if it's not used for web browsing or email (spam).
I'm guessing it was Java not Windows which exposed you to malware. Let me know, I'm interested in hearing about it.
Not meant to hijack this thread:
As I understand it, Java runs most of the servers world-wide... If Java is such a target of malware, how do these servers protect themselves from getting and passing on viruses?
It, likely, is Java that exposed my Mac to malware. I had a very old version of Java installed on this Mac but updated to version 8 to run UGSPlatform -- an open source Java app: https://github.com/winder/Universal-G-Code-Sender. I first installed this on the Mac so I could control the UNC natively, while designing under Virtual Windows 10. I am having trouble with it it on the Mac, so I installed it and am currently running it under virtual Windows 10. I did not install any anti-virus software on the Windows 10 and am not aware of any Windows viruses. I don't use Windows for mail -- only CNC stuff with an occasional use of Edge for CNC-related downloads and Help.
The most active virus is apparently not detected: About 50% of the time I follow a link to open a new Safari window, the linked window opens, then another window opens right on top of it. The virus window usually contains ads for someone like Amazon:
Left: Original Window -- clicked on diamond ring. Center: correct window target of link. Right: Virus window -- opens over center (target) window -- moved aside to display all 3 windows.
My Virus scanner detects viruses, mostly adware, as shown below -- I get rid of them, but they keep coming back.
Fake Mac Window opens - say, about once every 2 hours of use:
TotalAV Virus Scanner detects viruses like this -- more hits if I don't run scanner for a while:
Comments
At no point are we saying that there won't be disruption.
And as far as why do it? You just have to look to the last two major Mac processor shifts -- Vendors not delivering what they promise.
You keep harping on “majority” and trying to avoid admitting that 35% is significant enough percentage to warrant keeping that feature. Which is why you want to call 35% results to be “overly tilted”.
While intel faltered on 10nm it looks like Ice Lake will finally fulfill those promises and Intel has steadily improved power per watt on 14nm. Further it seems that Intel has been fairly responsive to Apple and my guess is that the customer that requested lakefiejld processor (bigLittle) from Intel was Apple. Or they will apply Foveros to stack something like T2 with Intel cores to reduce footprint.
Intel had a bad few years...just like with Itanium. It’s fashionable to bag on Intel right now and who knows maybe the new Ice Lakes won’t hit 18% IPC improvements. I’m guessing Intel is back on track
Intel hasn't had a "bad few years." It's had a bad 2011-2019 and 10nm is literally, three years late. For the last eight years, it hasn't set a deadline for release that it's made. It was less time in 94, and in 06 where deadlines weren't being met when the other shifts were made.
We don't get to say what Apple keeps and what doesn't, and this still isn't some kind of pitch for Apple to do so. It is an observation about why it probably will. There are enough signposts on the road that an ARM Mac is coming. You're welcome to ignore them at your leisure.
Look, I get that you don't like it. I get that you don't want to see it. I get that you use it, and 35% of the AI demo does. I use it. But, none of that matters to Apple one bit, and you know it.
Unfortunately all these little restrictions, depreciations, removals and neglect in software, along with neglect of certain hardware and features gradually may not directly affect a large proportion of the Mac userbase, but add them all up and it does. It leads to an experience that is less than what you expect from Apple. Just yesterday someone was trying to listen to something in the pub, and someone had headphones. Couldn't use them with the iPhone. Removing Back to my Mac - a really handy feature I used regularly, the removal of half the ports on Macs, making it much more cumbersome to use existing peripherals, the dumping of the AirPort line. Removing the optical connector from Macs and the AppleTV. All these things add up to make Apple's products more and more awkward to use, and with less perceived value-added. The Mac's main selling point and justification for its high price is that it's supposed to be easier to use than the competition, but when you have to go out and buy a batch of software to replace what Apple removed over the past few years, plus buying a bagful of dongles, the value proposition starts to look less and less appealing.
Intel's x86 is a crap architecture and it needs completely redesigning from the ground up. AMD didn't help on that front as Intel were trying to push people to their PPC based Itanium CPUs rather than bodge 64 bit onto x86, but AMD leapfrogged them and did it anyway. The ARM architecture is excellent, but not necessarily scalable to the sorts of applications that currently use x86. For laptops ARM is a no-brainer, but then you have a two-tier macOS and FAT binaries for the third time. A solution to that would be for desktop Macs to have both ARM and x86 CPUs in (like the T2) but then you have plenty of issues sharing RAM with one arch being little endian and the other big. If anyone was to come up with a solution for that though, it'd be Apple.
maybe there are signposts, and maybe it’s just a desire to see signposts. We don’t know.
if Apple doesn’t care, then why do they do it, and why do they maintain it?
I do have to chime in though, regarding the virus issue, I am surprised about the infections you got. I am a newbie to Windows (well since back in the early days) and have had Windows 10 running for the last two years on a few VMs, Boot Camp and since last year a Dell Server (2010 from eBay converted from Windows Server 16 to Windows 10 Pro by me) and a new Dell mid-tower with an i7 and GTX 1080 for games. I decided not to use any malware or anti-virus 3rd party application/utilities solely relying on Microsoft's built-in protections as I do with macOS and Apple's. So far not a single problem.
Apple cares about what it wants to care about, The whims change, and have always done so.
And no, we aren't ignoring that. It isn't hard to do so, but there are technical hurdles, not the least of which is Windows not being free.
Or is that all the “ARM Mac” you can get?
There are a lot of good cases presented, both for and against releasing a non-Intel Mac. My gut tells me that Apple will release a non-Intel Mac (in addition to their Intel Macs) -- because it takes them in a direction (total control) they want to go. Apple can walk, chew gum and juggle at the same time, so they're capable of it.
If they fail, they will have pissed away several 10s or hundreds of millions of dollars -- but, even that won't be a total loss.
As for the non-Intel chip, I don't think it will be an A chip... There are several reasons: 1) They can produce a chip customized to what Macs do/need (and then some); 2) From a PR perspective it is important to release a non-Intel Mac with a serious commitment and raison d'être.
We live in an era of [computer] expendability — you don’t/can’t upgrade your phone [computer] — rather, you buy on time, then upgrade (replace it) every 1-2 years. That’s how I see a non-Intel Mac being marketed.
Add Sidecar in iPadOS and take the idea a couple of versions of development time. Apple could then relegate MacOS to a headless backroom box in a rack if you still have a workflow that needs in. Or an iMac in your home office. A Pro MacBook for road warriors.
Make everything else a new family starting with iPadPro and adding bigger and bigger screen sizes as the GPU can drive them.
Hi Dick, what virus did you get? Was it a PC and/or Mac virus (malware)? My Mac virus scanner detects all kinds of malware in my email attachments but that doesn't mean my computer is infected. Most of them are Java which is not installed on my Mac or PC viruses which have no access to my PC VM. If something requires Java I always run it in a VM. I have several anti-virus packages installed on my Mac (on demand scanning), but it's been years since I've seen anything other than a common (sandboxed) browser hijack that comes from some freeware/shareware company.
I haven't yet seen a virus on one of my windows 10 PC VMs but an infection is highly unlikely if it's not used for web browsing or email (spam).
I'm guessing it was Java not Windows which exposed you to malware. Let me know, I'm interested in hearing about it.
Not meant to hijack this thread:
As I understand it, Java runs most of the servers world-wide... If Java is such a target of malware, how do these servers protect themselves from getting and passing on viruses?
It, likely, is Java that exposed my Mac to malware. I had a very old version of Java installed on this Mac but updated to version 8 to run UGSPlatform -- an open source Java app: https://github.com/winder/Universal-G-Code-Sender. I first installed this on the Mac so I could control the UNC natively, while designing under Virtual Windows 10. I am having trouble with it it on the Mac, so I installed it and am currently running it under virtual Windows 10. I did not install any anti-virus software on the Windows 10 and am not aware of any Windows viruses. I don't use Windows for mail -- only CNC stuff with an occasional use of Edge for CNC-related downloads and Help.
The most active virus is apparently not detected: About 50% of the time I follow a link to open a new Safari window, the linked window opens, then another window opens right on top of it. The virus window usually contains ads for someone like Amazon:
Left: Original Window -- clicked on diamond ring. Center: correct window target of link. Right: Virus window -- opens over center (target) window -- moved aside to display all 3 windows.
My Virus scanner detects viruses, mostly adware, as shown below -- I get rid of them, but they keep coming back.
Fake Mac Window opens - say, about once every 2 hours of use:
TotalAV Virus Scanner detects viruses like this -- more hits if I don't run scanner for a while: