At the moment, this is little more than a loss of prestige for Intel.
The problem will come if Microsoft decides to put some effort into its own ARM strategy.
MS doesn't have close to the silicon team that Apple has to pull this off. What we saw yesterday was how central Apple's silicon team is to Apple's competitive advantage. MS would have to buy a major silicon company to pull this off. Who knows, maybe they'll buy AMD (*sarcasm*).
At the moment, this is little more than a loss of prestige for Intel.
The problem will come if Microsoft decides to put some effort into its own ARM strategy.
Apple doesn't have close to the silicon team that Apple has to pull this off. What we saw yesterday was how central Apple's silicon team is to Apple's competitive advantage. MS would have to buy a major silicon company to pull this off. Who knows, maybe they'll buy AMD (*sarcasm*).
Microsoft can participate in ARM's Cortex X program, or work with a company that is.
The Cortex X1 and next year's ARMv9 Matterhorn core (Cortex X2?) are being designed without previous constraints that are on cores like the Cortex A78.
The Cortex-X1 here is projected to use 1.5x the power of an A78. This might end up slightly lower but I’m being overly cautious here and prefer to be on the more pessimistic side. Here’s the real kicker though: the X1 could very well use up to 2x the power of a Cortex-A77/A78 and it would still be able to compete with Apple’s cores in terms of energy efficiency – the core’s increased performance largely makes up for its increased power draw, meaning its energy efficiency at the projected power would roughly only be 23% worse than an A78, and only 11-14% worse than say a current generation Snapdragon 865. Arm has such a big leeway in power efficiency at the moment that I just don’t see any scenario where the X1 would end up disappointing.
...
Meanwhile the Cortex-X1 is a big change for Arm. And that change has less to do with the technology of the cores, and more with the business decisions that it now opens up for the company, although both are intertwined. For years many people were wondering why the company didn't design a core that could more closely compete with what Apple had built. In my view, one of the reasons for that was that Arm has always been constrained by the need to create a “one core fits all” design that could fit all of their customers’ needs – and not just the few flagship SoC designs.
The Cortex-X program here effectively unshackles Arm from these business limitations, and it allows the company to provide the best of both worlds. As a result, the A78 continues the company’s bread & butter design philosophy of power-performance-area leadership, whilst the X1 and its successors can now aim for the stars in terms of performance, without such strict area usage or power consumption limitations.
In this regard, the X1 seems really, really impressive. The 30% IPC improvement over the A77 is astounding and not something I had expected from the company this generation. The company has been incessantly beating the drum of their annual projected 20-25% improvements in performance – a pace which is currently well beyond what the competition has been able to achieve. These most recent projected performance figures are getting crazy close to the best that what we’ve seeing from the x86 players out there right now. That’s exciting for Arm, and should be worrying for the competition.
Nope. They could have any time, but there’s still no reason to. Moving your hands off the keyboard to reach out to a screen hinders productivity.
The ability to run iOS apps natively - did you see the part of the demo where they used an app using the touchpad... they will do touch on the Mac. Or look at the UI - interface elements have sliders and things have been given more space even in then menus - touch friendly.
As others have already stated, Apple could have made the desktop Mac a touch device some time ago. Nothing announced at the special event ushered in that capability.
Remember that a desktop computer is a different animal than a tablet with different use cases. Just because you can do something, doesn’t mean you should.
Well this was the best WEDC keynote they’ve ever done, probably the best use of that new theatre since it was built too. I do like the new Apple Watch, iPhone and iPads features, even if they are ripped straight from Android..
But.. I think Apple could have just killed the Mac, they are asking a lot from development houses here. And when your total market share globally is in single digits, I’m not sure many will comply, most did it for Intel as that’s the platform PCs use anyway, so it was easy, but now asking them to make effectively two apps, one for PC’s and one for Macs and iPads and iPhones, I’m not so sure many will want to do that, or, you’ll end up with a severely less capable app from the iPhone running in your new Max with Apple silicone.
Yeah, if you didn't understand it then it's probably best not to comment.
I completely understood it thanks, no need to be rude. Perhaps you could try to construct a sensible reply instead? You may surprise yourself.
At the moment, this is little more than a loss of prestige for Intel.
The problem will come if Microsoft decides to put some effort into its own ARM strategy.
Apple doesn't have close to the silicon team that Apple has to pull this off. What we saw yesterday was how central Apple's silicon team is to Apple's competitive advantage. MS would have to buy a major silicon company to pull this off. Who knows, maybe they'll buy AMD (*sarcasm*).
Microsoft can participate in ARM's Cortex X program, or work with a company that is...
Apple's A series processors aren't just about energy efficiency and flops. In large part it's about integrating all these other things,
into the processor and being able to customize it precisely to meet your needs. The graphic above represents years of R&D, customizing everything for exactly what Apple wants it to do. You can't have this overnight.
If the road this ends up going down means the same apps on a Mac are the same apps on an iPad, then surely Apples PC market share is going to shrink even further, everyone will just buy a much cheaper iPad.
I’m not questioning Apples silicone prowess here, I’m questioning if developers will follow them down the path.
Ummm, there’s over a hundred million Mac users. Developers will follow - it’s not a “hire a new team and rewrite all your code” obstacle. It’s a click-a-button and recompile inconvenience for 99% of developers.
Marketshare is not a metric you use to decide if you’re going to take time and develop software for a particular platform - what’s more important is user base and which versions of the OS is being used the most.
I do believe Craig said in cases it will take a ‘few days’, hardly clicking a button is it. And the user base is minuscule hence my comment:
I have to say that I don’t think that market share equates to hundreds of millions of Mac users. I’ve already read comments from music professional stating a lot of their old legacy plugins etc will no longer work. And the developers are either not in business anymore or too small to worry about Apple and spending money if an Apple silicone dev kit.
Sad! grab an Intel Mac Pro while you can. ARM Macs will be inferior in performance.
They just demoed Maya running in emulation on a year-old chip designed for a thermally-constrained, fanless enclosure. MacBook Pros and Mac Pros will have chips designed for MacOS and Apple's compiler. Also imagine how powerful a chip they could create with active cooling. I expect they will destroy Intel in performance.
Whilst I would say it was impressive, it was hardly a demo, he showed one scene and applied one change. But also we have no idea surely if the dev kit is fanless do we? No one outside Apple has seen one yet. I think that’s more an assumption at this point.
If the road this ends up going down means the same apps on a Mac are the same apps on an iPad, then surely Apples PC market share is going to shrink even further, everyone will just buy a much cheaper iPad.
I’m not questioning Apples silicone prowess here, I’m questioning if developers will follow them down the path.
That isn’t how apps are developed. Apple are not changing the silicon so they can write the same apps for both, as was explained in the Keynote. They are doing it for a lot of other reasons. Thinner laptops being one I’d imagine!
Apple already have Safari, Keynote, Photos, Mail, Maps, etc, etc, etc running on both platforms. They are not the same apps and putting the same processors in each won’t change that at all.
It will take effort, money and resources for a developer to make their programme that runs on X86 PCs also run on Mac OS Apple Silicone machines, and when Apple has a single digit market share, how many are going to do that? Even more so if they have an iOS app I think most will just let that be the programme for the new Macs instead, better value for the company and those share holders, Mac users get a lesser experience though.
Oh ffs. It’s a recompile of their existing code they are already building for the Mac. These are existing Mac developers. It will take at most days. Many of the most important apps have been ported already. Did you watch the presentation?
I did indeed, and the only ‘most important apps’ mentioned was Maya, Adobe, Microsoft Office, and Apples programmes, oh and the majority of iPhone and iPad apps.
I’m pretty sure that left out a vast majority of programmes made for Intel Macs over the years, are you really confident it’s a simple recompile? Craig said a few days not hours.
What is now the difference between an iPad Pro with a Magic Keyboard and, say, a MacBook Air?
Hardware wise, the primary differences are: -- clamshell design in the MBA
-- touch screen on the iPad and ability to work in tablet mode
-- the MBA has better thermal control so the processors can be pushed harder
All in all, for an average user, the hardware differences are mostly a wash with no clear winner and lot's of overlap.
Software wise:
-- MacOS vs iPadOS
And, increasingly, as iPadOS is strengthened & broadened, that is also a wash -- particularly for a casual, non-power user.
But, even there, other manufacturers have evened out that field by offering "desktop mode" on their convertible tablets so the user can run it as a tablet using tablet software or as a desktop using desktop OS... Could we see "BootCamp" on the iPad letting it run MacOS?
This is a thing that I am sure Apple has already thought through very thoroughly and already has a long term marketing strategy in mind.
... I can't wait to see how they deal with this....
........ I doubt that they will simply ignore it and let users sort it out for themselves. But, maybe... To quote Samwise: "You never know...."
At the moment, this is little more than a loss of prestige for Intel.
The problem will come if Microsoft decides to put some effort into its own ARM strategy.
Apple doesn't have close to the silicon team that Apple has to pull this off. What we saw yesterday was how central Apple's silicon team is to Apple's competitive advantage. MS would have to buy a major silicon company to pull this off. Who knows, maybe they'll buy AMD (*sarcasm*).
Microsoft can participate in ARM's Cortex X program, or work with a company that is...
Apple's A series processors aren't just about energy efficiency and flops. In large part it's about integrating all these other things,
into the processor and being able to customize it precisely to meet your needs. The graphic above represents years of R&D, customizing everything for exactly what Apple wants it to do. You can't have this overnight.
Of course it's more than that. You've just posted their image of what makes up their SoC. These components already exist, not only as ARM reference designs, but as components that have been worked on for years by various manufacturers.
Here's a block diagram from Qualcomm's Snapdragon 865 for example:
Even Microsoft has done custom silicon work alongside Qualcomm to fit their needs. In the HoloLens 2, Microsoft created a custom multiprocessor the HPU (Holographic Processing Unit) to accompany the Snapdragon 850. In the Surface Pro X, they branded the Microsoft SQ1 - going even further to take a Snapdragon 8cx and build onto it with a higher CPU clock, faster GPU (2.1 TFLOPS) and custom AI engine (9 TOPS).
At the moment, this is little more than a loss of prestige for Intel.
The problem will come if Microsoft decides to put some effort into its own ARM strategy.
Apple doesn't have close to the silicon team that Apple has to pull this off. What we saw yesterday was how central Apple's silicon team is to Apple's competitive advantage. MS would have to buy a major silicon company to pull this off. Who knows, maybe they'll buy AMD (*sarcasm*).
Microsoft can participate in ARM's Cortex X program, or work with a company that is...
Apple's A series processors aren't just about energy efficiency and flops. In large part it's about integrating all these other things,
into the processor and being able to customize it precisely to meet your needs. The graphic above represents years of R&D, customizing everything for exactly what Apple wants it to do. You can't have this overnight.
Of course it's more than that. You've just posted their image of what makes up their SoC. These components already exist, not only as ARM reference designs, but as components that have been worked on for years by various manufacturers.
Here's a block diagram from Qualcomm's Snapdragon 865 for example:
Even Microsoft has done custom silicon work alongside Qualcomm to fit their needs. In the HoloLens 2, Microsoft created a custom multiprocessor the HPU (Holographic Processing Unit) to accompany the Snapdragon 850. In the Surface Pro X, they branded the Microsoft SQ1 - going even further to take a Snapdragon 8cx and build onto it with a higher CPU clock, faster GPU (2.1 TFLOPS) and custom AI engine (9 TOPS).
I'm not sure what your point is, but Qualcomm SOC's aren't known to be as performant as Apple's, and more to the point, Qualcomm's SOC for Windows 10 ARM was not up to the hype. Qualcomm SOC's don't suck for smartphone use, but I don't see Qualcomm as going all in to a desktop class processor as Apple is doing either.
One thing is for sure, Apple's move to their own silicon is going to make Mac hardware updates a hell of a lot more interesting. When Apple is dependent on Intel there's only so much they can do to differentiate their product hardware from competing products that were launched in the same time frame. This always took a little wind out of Apple's sails and led to component-level comparisons that obscured the substantial system-level and ecosystem-level benefits that the Mac has always had over competing products.
The other thing I'd like to add is: don't for a second get lulled into believing that Apple's big silicon move is going to be all halcyon days of sunshine going forward. Intel, AMD, and emerging players who've not made their presence known yet are not going to roll over and let Apple get out ahead of the pack. They are going to fight tooth and nail to make Apple doubt its decision. If Apple can't deliver the kind of performance needed from their homegrown solutions they'll be pummeled in the market.
Yes, Apple is now being throttled by Intel, but so are Apple's competitors. There is nothing that points to this being a permanent state of affairs. Once Apple separates itself from Intel they won't be able to count on everyone else suffering with the same issues they have related to Intel. If Intel arrives at a huge breakthrough, Apple will be on the outside looking in.
The point is that we have to be aware that this is a risky move by Apple and they will have to prove to their customers for years to come that this was the right long-term strategy. Right now it seems brilliant, but sustaining that shine will take a hell of a lot of work. We just need to be realistic, temper the unbridled enthusiasm that some of us feel today, and be prepared for a long war of attrition against very capable adversaries. Nothing is a given and nothing will come easy. Personally, I see no other company being better positioned to meet the kind of challenges that are ahead for Apple.
At the moment, this is little more than a loss of prestige for Intel.
The problem will come if Microsoft decides to put some effort into its own ARM strategy.
Apple doesn't have close to the silicon team that Apple has to pull this off. What we saw yesterday was how central Apple's silicon team is to Apple's competitive advantage. MS would have to buy a major silicon company to pull this off. Who knows, maybe they'll buy AMD (*sarcasm*).
Microsoft can participate in ARM's Cortex X program, or work with a company that is...
Apple's A series processors aren't just about energy efficiency and flops. In large part it's about integrating all these other things,
into the processor and being able to customize it precisely to meet your needs. The graphic above represents years of R&D, customizing everything for exactly what Apple wants it to do. You can't have this overnight.
Of course it's more than that. You've just posted their image of what makes up their SoC. These components already exist, not only as ARM reference designs, but as components that have been worked on for years by various manufacturers.
Here's a block diagram from Qualcomm's Snapdragon 865 for example:
Even Microsoft has done custom silicon work alongside Qualcomm to fit their needs. In the HoloLens 2, Microsoft created a custom multiprocessor the HPU (Holographic Processing Unit) to accompany the Snapdragon 850. In the Surface Pro X, they branded the Microsoft SQ1 - going even further to take a Snapdragon 8cx and build onto it with a higher CPU clock, faster GPU (2.1 TFLOPS) and custom AI engine (9 TOPS).
Compare the diagrams, and the actual capabilities, and I think you've simply reinforced my point.
At the moment, this is little more than a loss of prestige for Intel.
The problem will come if Microsoft decides to put some effort into its own ARM strategy.
Apple doesn't have close to the silicon team that Apple has to pull this off. What we saw yesterday was how central Apple's silicon team is to Apple's competitive advantage. MS would have to buy a major silicon company to pull this off. Who knows, maybe they'll buy AMD (*sarcasm*).
Microsoft can participate in ARM's Cortex X program, or work with a company that is...
Apple's A series processors aren't just about energy efficiency and flops. In large part it's about integrating all these other things,
into the processor and being able to customize it precisely to meet your needs. The graphic above represents years of R&D, customizing everything for exactly what Apple wants it to do. You can't have this overnight.
Of course it's more than that. You've just posted their image of what makes up their SoC. These components already exist, not only as ARM reference designs, but as components that have been worked on for years by various manufacturers.
Here's a block diagram from Qualcomm's Snapdragon 865 for example:
Even Microsoft has done custom silicon work alongside Qualcomm to fit their needs. In the HoloLens 2, Microsoft created a custom multiprocessor the HPU (Holographic Processing Unit) to accompany the Snapdragon 850. In the Surface Pro X, they branded the Microsoft SQ1 - going even further to take a Snapdragon 8cx and build onto it with a higher CPU clock, faster GPU (2.1 TFLOPS) and custom AI engine (9 TOPS).
I'm not sure what your point is, but Qualcomm SOC's aren't known to be as performant as Apple's, and more to the point, Qualcomm's SOC for Windows 10 ARM was not up to the hype. Qualcomm SOC's don't suck for smartphone use, but I don't see Qualcomm as going all in to a desktop class processor as Apple is doing either.
Qualcomm is just one company that Microsoft has worked with. A big part of the reason why Qualcomm's SoCs aren't competing with Apple is due to their use of medium sized CPU cores and a reliance on ARM's outdated small cores. The Cortex X program solves that for them. They finally have a big core on ARM's roadmap they can use. Qualcomm has been pushing towards the laptop space for a few years now - this was a big piece of the puzzle missing for them.
At the moment, this is little more than a loss of prestige for Intel.
The problem will come if Microsoft decides to put some effort into its own ARM strategy.
Apple doesn't have close to the silicon team that Apple has to pull this off. What we saw yesterday was how central Apple's silicon team is to Apple's competitive advantage. MS would have to buy a major silicon company to pull this off. Who knows, maybe they'll buy AMD (*sarcasm*).
Microsoft can participate in ARM's Cortex X program, or work with a company that is...
Apple's A series processors aren't just about energy efficiency and flops. In large part it's about integrating all these other things,
into the processor and being able to customize it precisely to meet your needs. The graphic above represents years of R&D, customizing everything for exactly what Apple wants it to do. You can't have this overnight.
Of course it's more than that. You've just posted their image of what makes up their SoC. These components already exist, not only as ARM reference designs, but as components that have been worked on for years by various manufacturers.
Here's a block diagram from Qualcomm's Snapdragon 865 for example:
Even Microsoft has done custom silicon work alongside Qualcomm to fit their needs. In the HoloLens 2, Microsoft created a custom multiprocessor the HPU (Holographic Processing Unit) to accompany the Snapdragon 850. In the Surface Pro X, they branded the Microsoft SQ1 - going even further to take a Snapdragon 8cx and build onto it with a higher CPU clock, faster GPU (2.1 TFLOPS) and custom AI engine (9 TOPS).
Compare the diagrams, and the actual capabilities, and I think you've simply reinforced my point.
At the moment, this is little more than a loss of prestige for Intel.
The problem will come if Microsoft decides to put some effort into its own ARM strategy.
Apple doesn't have close to the silicon team that Apple has to pull this off. What we saw yesterday was how central Apple's silicon team is to Apple's competitive advantage. MS would have to buy a major silicon company to pull this off. Who knows, maybe they'll buy AMD (*sarcasm*).
Microsoft can participate in ARM's Cortex X program, or work with a company that is...
Apple's A series processors aren't just about energy efficiency and flops. In large part it's about integrating all these other things,
into the processor and being able to customize it precisely to meet your needs. The graphic above represents years of R&D, customizing everything for exactly what Apple wants it to do. You can't have this overnight.
Of course it's more than that. You've just posted their image of what makes up their SoC. These components already exist, not only as ARM reference designs, but as components that have been worked on for years by various manufacturers.
Here's a block diagram from Qualcomm's Snapdragon 865 for example:
Even Microsoft has done custom silicon work alongside Qualcomm to fit their needs. In the HoloLens 2, Microsoft created a custom multiprocessor the HPU (Holographic Processing Unit) to accompany the Snapdragon 850. In the Surface Pro X, they branded the Microsoft SQ1 - going even further to take a Snapdragon 8cx and build onto it with a higher CPU clock, faster GPU (2.1 TFLOPS) and custom AI engine (9 TOPS).
I'm not sure what your point is, but Qualcomm SOC's aren't known to be as performant as Apple's, and more to the point, Qualcomm's SOC for Windows 10 ARM was not up to the hype. Qualcomm SOC's don't suck for smartphone use, but I don't see Qualcomm as going all in to a desktop class processor as Apple is doing either.
Qualcomm is just one company that Microsoft has worked with. A big part of the reason why Qualcomm's SoCs aren't competing with Apple is due to their use of medium sized CPU cores and a reliance on ARM's outdated small cores. The Cortex X program solves that for them. They finally have a big core on ARM's roadmap they can use. Qualcomm has been pushing towards the laptop space for a few years now - this was a big piece of the puzzle missing for them.
My point is that Qualcomm is going to remain behind Apple in SOC performance, both in mobile and in notebook/desktop. The fact that Qualcomm has an architectural license yet has waited for Cortex X is telling, all the while Apple is innovating in the SOC space with the ARM ISA license. Apple's advantage is that it can provide synergy between its OS, development system and SOC designs, and other hardware.
At the moment, this is little more than a loss of prestige for Intel.
The problem will come if Microsoft decides to put some effort into its own ARM strategy.
Apple doesn't have close to the silicon team that Apple has to pull this off. What we saw yesterday was how central Apple's silicon team is to Apple's competitive advantage. MS would have to buy a major silicon company to pull this off. Who knows, maybe they'll buy AMD (*sarcasm*).
Microsoft can participate in ARM's Cortex X program, or work with a company that is...
Apple's A series processors aren't just about energy efficiency and flops. In large part it's about integrating all these other things,
into the processor and being able to customize it precisely to meet your needs. The graphic above represents years of R&D, customizing everything for exactly what Apple wants it to do. You can't have this overnight.
Of course it's more than that. You've just posted their image of what makes up their SoC. These components already exist, not only as ARM reference designs, but as components that have been worked on for years by various manufacturers.
Here's a block diagram from Qualcomm's Snapdragon 865 for example:
Even Microsoft has done custom silicon work alongside Qualcomm to fit their needs. In the HoloLens 2, Microsoft created a custom multiprocessor the HPU (Holographic Processing Unit) to accompany the Snapdragon 850. In the Surface Pro X, they branded the Microsoft SQ1 - going even further to take a Snapdragon 8cx and build onto it with a higher CPU clock, faster GPU (2.1 TFLOPS) and custom AI engine (9 TOPS).
Compare the diagrams, and the actual capabilities, and I think you've simply reinforced my point.
No, you just need to do a better job in understanding what all of the components in the Qualcomm diagram actually do and their functions.
You seem to be missing the point of having custom logic that you’ve spent years optimizing for your own needs. Yes, all the parts of Apple’s SoC can be found elsewhere, but Apple has designed, and redesigned them to squeeze all the performance from them by being able to customize everything for EXACTLY what they need. As an example, their GPU’s directly support Metal calls, which removes a layer of overhead. They’re free to extend and customize ARM’s ISA as well, as there’s no need for their own silicon to be compatible with anything outside their own ecosystem.
One thing is for sure, Apple's move to their own silicon is going to make Mac hardware updates a hell of a lot more interesting. When Apple is dependent on Intel there's only so much they can do to differentiate their product hardware from competing products that were launched in the same time frame. This always took a little wind out of Apple's sails and led to component-level comparisons that obscured the substantial system-level and ecosystem-level benefits that the Mac has always had over competing products.
The other thing I'd like to add is: don't for a second get lulled into believing that Apple's big silicon move is going to be all halcyon days of sunshine going forward. Intel, AMD, and emerging players who've not made their presence known yet are not going to roll over and let Apple get out ahead of the pack. They are going to fight tooth and nail to make Apple doubt its decision. If Apple can't deliver the kind of performance needed from their homegrown solutions they'll be pummeled in the market.
Yes, Apple is now being throttled by Intel, but so are Apple's competitors. There is nothing that points to this being a permanent state of affairs. Once Apple separates itself from Intel they won't be able to count on everyone else suffering with the same issues they have related to Intel. If Intel arrives at a huge breakthrough, Apple will be on the outside looking in.
The point is that we have to be aware that this is a risky move by Apple and they will have to prove to their customers for years to come that this was the right long-term strategy. Right now it seems brilliant, but sustaining that shine will take a hell of a lot of work. We just need to be realistic, temper the unbridled enthusiasm that some of us feel today, and be prepared for a long war of attrition against very capable adversaries. Nothing is a given and nothing will come easy. Personally, I see no other company being better positioned to meet the kind of challenges that are ahead for Apple.
Really, what has set Apple apart from the Windows World is its software and ecosystem, not the hardware.
I seriously doubt that the move to "Apple Silicon" will change that.
At most it will enable them to better customize the hardware for their own needs. But regardless, like the iPhone, the major differentiator will be the software and ecosystem -- and now, for the Mac, they will be better able to take advantage of those things (such as, for example, opening up iOS apps to Mac).
But, that said, I agree that their presentations will gain additional WOW! factor.
Comments
The Cortex X1 and next year's ARMv9 Matterhorn core (Cortex X2?) are being designed without previous constraints that are on cores like the Cortex A78.
Remember that a desktop computer is a different animal than a tablet with different use cases. Just because you can do something, doesn’t mean you should.
Perhaps you could try to construct a sensible reply instead? You may surprise yourself.
into the processor and being able to customize it precisely to meet your needs. The graphic above represents years of R&D, customizing everything for exactly what Apple wants it to do. You can't have this overnight.
I do believe Craig said in cases it will take a ‘few days’, hardly clicking a button is it. And the user base is minuscule hence my comment:
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/appleinsider.com/articles/19/10/10/mac-shipments-grow-slightly-but-apple-pc-market-share-shrinks/amp/
I have to say that I don’t think that market share equates to hundreds of millions of Mac users.
I’ve already read comments from music professional stating a lot of their old legacy plugins etc will no longer work. And the developers are either not in business anymore or too small to worry about Apple and spending money if an Apple silicone dev kit.
LOL... Yeh,,, nobody uses Windows anymore.... /s
-- clamshell design in the MBA
Here's a block diagram from Qualcomm's Snapdragon 865 for example:
Even Microsoft has done custom silicon work alongside Qualcomm to fit their needs. In the HoloLens 2, Microsoft created a custom multiprocessor the HPU (Holographic Processing Unit) to accompany the Snapdragon 850. In the Surface Pro X, they branded the Microsoft SQ1 - going even further to take a Snapdragon 8cx and build onto it with a higher CPU clock, faster GPU (2.1 TFLOPS) and custom AI engine (9 TOPS).
The other thing I'd like to add is: don't for a second get lulled into believing that Apple's big silicon move is going to be all halcyon days of sunshine going forward. Intel, AMD, and emerging players who've not made their presence known yet are not going to roll over and let Apple get out ahead of the pack. They are going to fight tooth and nail to make Apple doubt its decision. If Apple can't deliver the kind of performance needed from their homegrown solutions they'll be pummeled in the market.
Yes, Apple is now being throttled by Intel, but so are Apple's competitors. There is nothing that points to this being a permanent state of affairs. Once Apple separates itself from Intel they won't be able to count on everyone else suffering with the same issues they have related to Intel. If Intel arrives at a huge breakthrough, Apple will be on the outside looking in.
The point is that we have to be aware that this is a risky move by Apple and they will have to prove to their customers for years to come that this was the right long-term strategy. Right now it seems brilliant, but sustaining that shine will take a hell of a lot of work. We just need to be realistic, temper the unbridled enthusiasm that some of us feel today, and be prepared for a long war of attrition against very capable adversaries. Nothing is a given and nothing will come easy. Personally, I see no other company being better positioned to meet the kind of challenges that are ahead for Apple.
No, you just need to do a better job in understanding what all of the components in the Qualcomm diagram actually do and their functions.
You seem to be missing the point of having custom logic that you’ve spent years optimizing for your own needs. Yes, all the parts of Apple’s SoC can be found elsewhere, but Apple has designed, and redesigned them to squeeze all the performance from them by being able to customize everything for EXACTLY what they need. As an example, their GPU’s directly support Metal calls, which removes a layer of overhead. They’re free to extend and customize ARM’s ISA as well, as there’s no need for their own silicon to be compatible with anything outside their own ecosystem.