One way for Apple to take more business from Intel would be to put Apple Silicon in Apple datacenter and offer an "iCloud Pro" that is a more user-friendly analog to AWS (honestly, it would not be hard AT ALL to be more user-friendly than AWS).
An iCloud Pro already exists. It is called a Chromebook. And Windows 10S for that matter. Look, cloud services cost money on an ongoing subscription basis. No one is going to buy them to replace the software that already runs natively on PCs. And if they were going to do that, again it would be cheap hardware like Chromebooks. They aren't going to pay twice as much as Wintel for the hardware AND THEN pay annual subscriptions for the software.
Look guys. Lots of computer makers have manufactured their own chips. Apple doing so isn't going to fundamentally change it any more than Samsung making their own Exynos chips changed the Android or ChromeOS landscape.
And note: you didn't answer my question. I asked you if Apple was going to make a range of CPUs that meet a range of price, performance and application needs. That is what Intel, AMD, Qualcomm, Samsung and MediaTEK all do and have been doing for DECADES. That is what Apple has never done at any time and there isn't a bit of evidence that they are capable of it.
I guess if you ignore the fact that they're using that EXACT strategy for pricing and positioning the different models of iPhones and iPads in the market
Microsoft gave up making smartphones and mobile software early on. Apple will give up the cpu business in couple of years when they realize intel and amd are light years ahead in terms of performance. Apple are attempting to control everything byt with the cpu this will be a failure similar to PowerPC.
on another note, I’m still waiting for the 720p webcam to be replace in the MacBook Pro, and the missing ports. shame on them for crippling the Mac
What are you talking about man? The cartel Windows and Intel was the worst thing that could happened to the computer industry. They pushed to bankrupt many computer companies, which had better PC’s and much better OSs, than Windows.
In the late 80’s, begin 90’s, I used an Atari computer for my music, and to run the same program on Windows, I had SIXTEEN times more RAM! But the industry was afcourse happy with “Wintel”, because they could charge you 16 times more for your RAM.
The only non Windows company that survived was Apple. And obviously you don’t know that the CPU in PowerPC came from Motorola and because Motorola stopped production of this CPU, Apple moved to Intel. Now I am very happy to see that this move has been only for a while, and Apple is moving forward to its independents with own CPU.
Basically, the Mac platform has always tried to be a computing appliance. an integrated platform that "just works" as simply as turning on a TV.
And in the world of computing, Apple has gotten the closest. but it has never been that simple.
Now, with integrated SOCs and the hardware/software being developed in tandem. what Apple Silicon means is that we will see the dream of an embedding system - or computing appliance - realized in actuality.
It's astounding.
We will see MUCH faster hardware, MUCH more efficient power usage, and MUCH cooler systems. Along with this, will be unheard of form factors that allow for whatever aesthetics the company wants to release.
Apple chips have come a looooong ways. But they are ready.
They currently produce The absolute BEST mobile SOCs on the market.
And they are applying that to desktop class silicon.
Apple Silicon plus macOS, Swift, Metal, and the rest of the stack now provides the most solid and technically advanced (relative to the rest of the industry) foundation in the history of the Mac. The last time the Mac, as an integrated hardware-software platform, was this advanced relative to the rest of the industry might have been when the Mac IIci was introduced.
I can't believe that Apple would have spent so much time and money investing in this strong foundation to just punt on the software that runs on this platform. I anticipate that we are going to see a commitment to building out the app ecosystem on the Mac in a way that we haven't seen in decades. I'm very excited by what Apple Silicon means for the Mac!
"Apple Silicon plus macOS, Swift, Metal and the rest of the stack now provides the most solid and technically advanced (relative to the rest of the industry) foundation in the history of the Mac."
Even if that is true, it doesn't matter as much as you think because of the price of Apple hardware and the general unavailability of most of Windows software on a Mac. As I have said before, you guys are looking at this all wrong. You are thinking: "this makes me more excited than ever to be a Mac owner!" As well it should. But that isn't the issue. The real issue is: "why does this make me - as a Windows user - any more likely to buy a Mac than I was before?"
For you, who loves the Apple ecosystem, the Mac being on the same hardware/software platform as the iPad and iPhone is outstanding. But if you don't own an iPhone (15% market share) or iPad (35% market share) in the first place ... or if you own an iPhone/iPad but also have a Windows computer (as most do!) then why do you care? You don't. You only care about how much your device costs and whether it runs what you want it to run as you did before.
As far as punting on the software that runs on the platform ... when has Apple ever been a software company? They aren't. They are a hardware company. They get involved in software only inasmuch as the competition forces them to. You can basically say that software is to Apple what hardware is to Google.
Also, I can answer your question. Apple doesn't care about competing with Wintel as much as you think. (If they did, it would be a crushing loss. At no time have Macs ever had more than 15% market share, and at times it has been less than 3% market share. More Chromebooks sell than Macs.) Apple cares more about platform convergence. Unifying iOS,iPadOS, macOS, watchOS, tvOS and HomeKit. Instead of chasing the people who don't use their products, giving the people who do use their products the best possible experience and performance. People who use Windows (and to a lesser extent Android, ChromeOS and Linux) will be irrelevant. But people who use Apple hardware will be VERY satisfied and much less likely to jump ship.
Apple and Wintel will diverge. The hardware will diverge further. The software will diverge. Apple people will become totally different from Windows people. They may even work in different industries, as you literally may not be able to do the work in an Apple shop on a Wintel machine and vice versa. And Apple is totally fine if that happens.
And note: you didn't answer my question. I asked you if Apple was going to make a range of CPUs that meet a range of price, performance and application needs. That is what Intel, AMD, Qualcomm, Samsung and MediaTEK all do and have been doing for DECADES. That is what Apple has never done at any time and there isn't a bit of evidence that they are capable of it.
I guess if you ignore the fact that they're using that EXACT strategy for pricing and positioning the different models of iPhones and iPads in the market
And I guess you are doing your level best to ignore my main argument. Mobile is not PC. Apple dominates mindshare and profit in mobile. In PC, they are basically a bit above Acer. Switching from Intel to ARM won't change that because Apple PCs will still cost twice and much and will still not be able to run most software that can run on Windows. You use Macs so their pricing and software issues don't affect you. They DO affect people who use and rely on the Windows platforms, both consumers and enterprises.
There isn't a single app that truly matters that runs on a Samsung smartphone or tablet that won't run on the iPhone SE 2 or the base iPad. Not the case in the Windows world and you know it.
Maybe Apple should consider taking over the CPU business and sell to PC manufacturers...
I really hope that you are being facetious. The reason is that most Windows won't run on the Ax and neither will most Windows applications.
Second, PC manufacturers need a range of CPUs with different specs and prices so they can make devices at all price points, from $200-$15,000. Is Apple going to come out with a $5 CPU to compete with the dual core Celerons that goes in the very low end Windows PCs and Chromebooks? Are they even going to come out with a $50 CPU to compete with the i3 that goes into $400-$500 Windows and ChromeOS laptops?
No. They aren't. And even if they did - again - those Windows laptops wouldn't be able to run 75% of the software that they can now, including even cheap Steam video games.
But again, you were kidding. Because obviously you know more about technology and economics than that.
You don’t think Apple can enter mature markets and still destroy their competitors? Where have you been for the last 20 years?
For goodnes sakes what on earth are you talking about? What competitor has Apple destroyed exactly? Sony? No. Microsoft? No. Google? No. Dell? No. HP? No.
Nokia Palm HTC Mobile RIM/Blackberry Creative Zen Microsoft Zune Windows for Tablets Android for tablets Windows Mobile Windows Phone Windows Plays For Sure Rhapsody Google Music Google Wear OS
Loads of products have fallen by the wayside because they couldn't compete with Apple hardware, software or services. Android and others probably had a hand in putting down some of them too, but it was significantly and/or largely an Apple effect.
4. Intel's high end chips - the i7, i9 and Xeon - already outperform the A14. Why people believe otherwise amazes me. Especially since Apple essentially acknowledges this by not even trying to build an ARM equivalent to the Mac Pro or anything else that used the i9 or Xeon.
What you smoking bro? The A14 doesn't exist yet. And when it does it will probably be a phone and tablet chip, very thermally limited and low power draw, and not at all intended to compete with the i7, i9 and Xeon. The Intel Atom chip line wasn't as fast as the G5 either, doesn't mean that x86 was worse than PowerPC.
Apple only just announced the transition, they haven't acknowledged anything by "not even trying" to build any of their Mac products with an Apple Silicon chip yet, because they haven't built any of their Mac products with an Applicon chip yet. You don't know what they're building, or trying to build, and you'll only know when they announce it. That'll come with time, and will bring Applicon that's probably significantly more powerful that what we've seen before because laptops and desktops have a lot more cooling options than iPhone and iPads. Apple will not be sticking the same chips that are in iPads into their Pro-grade Macs.
Maybe Apple should consider taking over the CPU business and sell to PC manufacturers...
I really hope that you are being facetious. The reason is that most Windows won't run on the Ax and neither will most Windows applications.
Second, PC manufacturers need a range of CPUs with different specs and prices so they can make devices at all price points, from $200-$15,000. Is Apple going to come out with a $5 CPU to compete with the dual core Celerons that goes in the very low end Windows PCs and Chromebooks? Are they even going to come out with a $50 CPU to compete with the i3 that goes into $400-$500 Windows and ChromeOS laptops?
No. They aren't. And even if they did - again - those Windows laptops wouldn't be able to run 75% of the software that they can now, including even cheap Steam video games.
But again, you were kidding. Because obviously you know more about technology and economics than that.
You don’t think Apple can enter mature markets and still destroy their competitors? Where have you been for the last 20 years?
For goodnes sakes what on earth are you talking about? What competitor has Apple destroyed exactly? Sony? No. Microsoft? No. Google? No. Dell? No. HP? No.
Nokia Palm HTC Mobile RIM/Blackberry Creative Zen Microsoft Zune Windows for Tablets Android for tablets Windows Mobile Windows Phone Windows Plays For Sure Rhapsody Google Music Google Wear OS
Loads of products have fallen by the wayside because they couldn't compete with Apple hardware, software or services. Android and others probably had a hand in putting down some of them too, but it was significantly and/or largely an Apple effect.
Dang. Truth.
And after looking at that mobile list, it looks like Apple is aiming at the PC industry with the future of the Mac. upside down (or rightsize up?) Marketshare shift coming right up...
I say the industry will claim Apple is making a big mistake and those ARM processors will never equal the power of X86 processors although there is nothing stopping Apple from scaling up its ARM processors in core count while having a 5nm node that's more power-efficient and much denser for higher transistor count. There is already an ARM Ampere Altra processor that has 80 cores but costs over $5000. It's a beast of a processor for high-end use. See: https://amperecomputing.com/ampere-altra-industrys-first-80-core-server-processor-unveiled/
So if anyone is going to BS about how no ARM processor can touch an X86 processor, they're lying. I don't know about how Apple Silicon is going to handle GPU processing but I heard Apple is going to be building discrete ARM GPUs along with SoC ARM processors with integrated GPUs. Amazon is using ARM-powered servers on AWS that are equal to their X86 counterparts and require far less cooling. See: https://www.extremetech.com/computing/307498-amazon-launches-a-killer-arm-server-chip-with-the-graviton2
There may be some advantage to having X86 on desktops that have huge amounts of cooling and high-wattage power supplies, but Apple Silicon is going to have a huge advantage when it comes to laptops due to lower TDP and longer battery life. There are going to be plenty of naysayers claiming Apple doesn't know anything about high-end processors or gaming GPUs and such but any company with enough money can at least try to figure it out if the incentive is there. In Apple's case, it's all about profits and they're fed up with paying Intel for sub-par processors. Yeah, let the naysayers believe Apple will fail because that's what the Apple naysayers always believe when Apple brings something new to the table.
Anyway, time will tell if Apple is making a huge mistake moving to Apple Silicon, but I don't think they are. It's about time for ARM processors to shine for consumer use and possibly beyond. I can't wait to get an Apple Silicon Mac later this year. I think I'm done with Intel processor Macs but I'll wait and see how well Apple Silicon Macs perform. I'll still keep my older Intel Macs so I'm not going to be backed into any corner.
Maybe Apple should consider taking over the CPU business and sell to PC manufacturers...
I really hope that you are being facetious. The reason is that most Windows won't run on the Ax and neither will most Windows applications.
Second, PC manufacturers need a range of CPUs with different specs and prices so they can make devices at all price points, from $200-$15,000. Is Apple going to come out with a $5 CPU to compete with the dual core Celerons that goes in the very low end Windows PCs and Chromebooks? Are they even going to come out with a $50 CPU to compete with the i3 that goes into $400-$500 Windows and ChromeOS laptops?
No. They aren't. And even if they did - again - those Windows laptops wouldn't be able to run 75% of the software that they can now, including even cheap Steam video games.
But again, you were kidding. Because obviously you know more about technology and economics than that.
You don’t think Apple can enter mature markets and still destroy their competitors? Where have you been for the last 20 years?
For goodnes sakes what on earth are you talking about? What competitor has Apple destroyed exactly? Sony? No. Microsoft? No. Google? No. Dell? No. HP? No.
And note: you didn't answer my question. I asked you if Apple was going to make a range of CPUs that meet a range of price, performance and application needs. That is what Intel, AMD, Qualcomm, Samsung and MediaTEK all do and have been doing for DECADES. That is what Apple has never done at any time and there isn't a bit of evidence that they are capable of it.
Nokia? Effectively gone. They were the top smartphone company in the world by a wide margin. Now they exclusively make things for markets Apple doesn't.
Research In Motion (later renamed to BlackBerry Ltd.)? Effectively gone. They have left hardware entirely and moved to a market which Apple isn't in.
Palm? Before the iPhone was introduced, their CEO said "We’ve learned and struggled for a few years here figuring out how to make a decent phone. PC guys are not going to just figure this out. They’re not going to just walk in." The company was sold to HP in 2010 and all their product development ended in 2011, about four years after the iPhone shipped.
Motorola Mobility? Gone.
HP? Out of the phone market.
Google was over a year late to the party because Android had been aimed at BlackBerry. They had to spend a huge amount of developer effort (and therefore money) changing to go after the iPhone. While they couldn't come up with it on their own, they were fortunate enough to recognize the future when it was shown to them.
Agree with this. Don't think Intel is going anywhere soon, but if you have stock I think now is a good time to sell. Intel is vulnerable right now.
There's a lot of laziness and content out there right now. Apple Silicon is going to wake a few business units up at MS and Intel, at least it better for their sake.
This isn't true at all. It doesn't solve the main reason why PC users don't buy Macs.
1. Macs cost twice as much as Windows PCs with comparable specs. This means that ChromeOS - whose devices are cheaper than Windows ones - is a bigger threat, and ChromeOS already runs on both ARM and x86-64, even the Linux and Android apps.
2. Macs can't run a ton of software that Windows can, including a lot of specialty and enterprise software, with gaming being a particular example. When Macs switch to ARM, this is going to get worse, not better.
A lot of people seem to think that Apple's clout in mobile translates to PC. It doesn't. No one is going to run out and buy a MacBook that costs twice as much as a Dell and can't run the software that he needs for work or the video games that he wants to play just because it has the same processor in it that is in the iPhone and iPad (which most likely he may not own anyway because Android has an 65% market share in tablets and 80% market share overall). The people who believe this are Apple fans who own and use Apple products anyway and only deal with Windows and Android devices for review purposes. (Yes, this includes most "tech" writers, who regularly get basic stuff about non-Apple products wrong.)
And it isn't laziness. Real tech problems that Apple doesn't have to deal with because Apple only has to support one platform isn't laziness. Apple doesn't have to worry about backwards compatibility because Apple doesn't have an enterprise software unit. Microsoft does have an enterprise software unit, it is a massive part of its business, and Microsoft can't tell those customers that they aren't going to support business applications that their customers wrote in 1997 that will never be meaningfully updated because it will cost them tons of money without generating them a bit of revenue.
As for Intel, they make a wide range of processors - i3, i5, i7, i9, Xeon - that allows their OEMs to make devices at all price points that they need to update at the same time. It is a completely different challenge from Apple's only needing to work on a single Ax processor a year. That is the same with Qualcomm: they have multiple 2x, 4x, 6x and 7x processors a year as well as their flagship 8x.
The hardware and software companies that support a range of devices, platforms and price points all have a harder job than Apple. They can't do what Apple does, but based on the issues that Apple has at times, Apple can't do what they do either.
So basically the reason you give that MS cannot make a big step is because they never had the guts/competence to let go of outdated stuff and for the sake of the consumer simply kept backwards compatibility ad Infinitum. “Sorry my dear customer I cannot give you something new because you stuck to something old which over years we cemented as well.” Well... a self generated problem. Not so much because of customer base size.
Having business customers you don’t want to let down in the course of progress simply implies a certain mindset, willingness and competence. That’s Balmer’s MS for you. Not.
4. Intel's high end chips - the i7, i9 and Xeon - already outperform the A14. Why people believe otherwise amazes me. Especially since Apple essentially acknowledges this by not even trying to build an ARM equivalent to the Mac Pro or anything else that used the i9 or Xeon.
What you smoking bro? The A14 doesn't exist yet. And when it does it will probably be a phone and tablet chip, very thermally limited and low power draw, and not at all intended to compete with the i7, i9 and Xeon. The Intel Atom chip line wasn't as fast as the G5 either, doesn't mean that x86 was worse than PowerPC.
Apple only just announced the transition, they haven't acknowledged anything by "not even trying" to build any of their Mac products with an Apple Silicon chip yet, because they haven't built any of their Mac products with an Applicon chip yet. You don't know what they're building, or trying to build, and you'll only know when they announce it. That'll come with time, and will bring Applicon that's probably significantly more powerful that what we've seen before because laptops and desktops have a lot more cooling options than iPhone and iPads. Apple will not be sticking the same chips that are in iPads into their Pro-grade Macs.
They are going to deliver the first batch of MacBooks by the end of this year/early next year meaning that the A14 chip will be used.
Palm HTC Mobile RIM/Blackberry Creative Zen Microsoft Zune Windows for Tablets Android for tablets Windows Mobile Windows Phone Windows Plays For Sure Rhapsody Google Music Google Wear OS
Loads of products have fallen by the wayside because they couldn't compete with Apple hardware, software or services. Android and others probably had a hand in putting down some of them too, but it was significantly and/or largely an Apple effect.
Dang. Truth.
And after looking at that mobile list, it looks like Apple is aiming at the PC industry with the future of the Mac. upside down (or rightsize up?) Marketshare shift coming right up...
Ummm ... no. Nokia, Palm, RIM/Blackberry, Windows for Tablets, Windows Mobile, Windows Phone are mobile devices. And Android had more to do with killing off Windows Mobile and Nokia than iOS did because it was Android that killed off all the competitors that were inevitably going to exist. HTC was killed off by Samsung and other Android OEMs. Android tablets have 65% market share. Samsung alone sells more tablets than Apple does Macs. Android tablets being dead is nonsense from the tech media that never uses them. Google Play Music still very much exists and is HUGE overseas where very few people use iPhones. And it is merely being folded into YouTube Music. Wear OS was trash before the Apple Watch even entered the market. Most people didn't know that the product even existed.
Also, the mobile market was TINY and YOUNG when the iPhone defined it. By contrast the PC market is HUGE and has been in existence since the 1970s. Apple was a new entrant to the mobile market. But they have been in the PC market ... since the 1970s. And guess what? Apple has shifted CPUs lots of times before. Their original CPU. Then PowerPC. Then Intel. The only thing different than before is their using a chip that they designed.
So no. It isn't true at all.
And you are forgetting the main thing: to have an impact on the CPU industry, Apple is going to have to make CPUs that run Windows, Linux and ChromeOS devices made by manufacturers other than Apple. If that doesn't happen: Qualcomm is going to have to make CPUs that are better than Intel's. And even if that DOES happen, Windows on ARM will have to perform BETTER than Wintel!
You guys are acting as if Windows is going to go away. Or Windows on ARM is going to get better. Or Qualcomm is going to match the Ax. None of those are going to happen.
One way for Apple to take more business from Intel would be to put Apple Silicon in Apple datacenter and offer an "iCloud Pro" that is a more user-friendly analog to AWS (honestly, it would not be hard AT ALL to be more user-friendly than AWS).
An iCloud Pro already exists. It is called a Chromebook. And Windows 10S for that matter. Look, cloud services cost money on an ongoing subscription basis. No one is going to buy them to replace the software that already runs natively on PCs. And if they were going to do that, again it would be cheap hardware like Chromebooks. They aren't going to pay twice as much as Wintel for the hardware AND THEN pay annual subscriptions for the software.
Look guys. Lots of computer makers have manufactured their own chips. Apple doing so isn't going to fundamentally change it any more than Samsung making their own Exynos chips changed the Android or ChromeOS landscape.
No. Chromebook is NOT an alternative to AWS, and it is not "Pro." It's a second-rate product for budget-constrained school districts.
AWS is a way to provide very substantial computing resources on-demand for professional use cases. But right now, AWS isn't very easy to use. There may be an opening here.
Normally Apple waits for someone else to come up with the tech then they step in with something better. This time they’ve been waiting on Intel for so long they’re heading this journey ahead of everyone else. I’m happy for them and everything that’s to come of it.
4. Intel's high end chips - the i7, i9 and Xeon - already outperform the A14. Why people believe otherwise amazes me. Especially since Apple essentially acknowledges this by not even trying to build an ARM equivalent to the Mac Pro or anything else that used the i9 or Xeon.
What you smoking bro? The A14 doesn't exist yet. And when it does it will probably be a phone and tablet chip, very thermally limited and low power draw, and not at all intended to compete with the i7, i9 and Xeon. The Intel Atom chip line wasn't as fast as the G5 either, doesn't mean that x86 was worse than PowerPC.
Apple only just announced the transition, they haven't acknowledged anything by "not even trying" to build any of their Mac products with an Apple Silicon chip yet, because they haven't built any of their Mac products with an Applicon chip yet. You don't know what they're building, or trying to build, and you'll only know when they announce it. That'll come with time, and will bring Applicon that's probably significantly more powerful that what we've seen before because laptops and desktops have a lot more cooling options than iPhone and iPads. Apple will not be sticking the same chips that are in iPads into their Pro-grade Macs.
They are going to deliver the first batch of MacBooks by the end of this year/early next year meaning that the A14 chip will be used.
While I enjoy reading most of your well reasoned comments, this is the only part that you have got consistently incorrect. And others have pointed out clearly as well. Let me give it one last try - the A14 for iPhone 12 generation will have a TDP of 5 watts to 7 watts. Do you seriously think that the same A14 with the same TDP will be used in Macbooks???
Apple Silicon plus macOS, Swift, Metal, and the rest of the stack now provides the most solid and technically advanced (relative to the rest of the industry) foundation in the history of the Mac. The last time the Mac, as an integrated hardware-software platform, was this advanced relative to the rest of the industry might have been when the Mac IIci was introduced.
I can't believe that Apple would have spent so much time and money investing in this strong foundation to just punt on the software that runs on this platform. I anticipate that we are going to see a commitment to building out the app ecosystem on the Mac in a way that we haven't seen in decades. I'm very excited by what Apple Silicon means for the Mac!
"Apple Silicon plus macOS, Swift, Metal and the rest of the stack now provides the most solid and technically advanced (relative to the rest of the industry) foundation in the history of the Mac."
Even if that is true, it doesn't matter as much as you think because of the price of Apple hardware and the general unavailability of most of Windows software on a Mac. As I have said before, you guys are looking at this all wrong. You are thinking: "this makes me more excited than ever to be a Mac owner!" As well it should. But that isn't the issue. The real issue is: "why does this make me - as a Windows user - any more likely to buy a Mac than I was before?"
For you, who loves the Apple ecosystem, the Mac being on the same hardware/software platform as the iPad and iPhone is outstanding. But if you don't own an iPhone (15% market share) or iPad (35% market share) in the first place ... or if you own an iPhone/iPad but also have a Windows computer (as most do!) then why do you care? You don't. You only care about how much your device costs and whether it runs what you want it to run as you did before.
As far as punting on the software that runs on the platform ... when has Apple ever been a software company? They aren't. They are a hardware company. They get involved in software only inasmuch as the competition forces them to. You can basically say that software is to Apple what hardware is to Google.
Also, I can answer your question. Apple doesn't care about competing with Wintel as much as you think. (If they did, it would be a crushing loss. At no time have Macs ever had more than 15% market share, and at times it has been less than 3% market share. More Chromebooks sell than Macs.) Apple cares more about platform convergence. Unifying iOS,iPadOS, macOS, watchOS, tvOS and HomeKit. Instead of chasing the people who don't use their products, giving the people who do use their products the best possible experience and performance. People who use Windows (and to a lesser extent Android, ChromeOS and Linux) will be irrelevant. But people who use Apple hardware will be VERY satisfied and much less likely to jump ship.
Apple and Wintel will diverge. The hardware will diverge further. The software will diverge. Apple people will become totally different from Windows people. They may even work in different industries, as you literally may not be able to do the work in an Apple shop on a Wintel machine and vice versa. And Apple is totally fine if that happens.
I think perhaps there is a difference here in where we are placing the goal posts.
I think that for Apple, a 20% worldwide marketshare for the Mac is the upper attainable limit -- I can't see how they could go higher than that without some very substantial changes that go well beyond anything we could predict today. Today, their share is about 7%, so this would be a big sales boost for them, but Wintel would still have 80% o the market. So, it could be that we aren't in huge disagreement -- maybe just talking about it differently.
Comments
Look guys. Lots of computer makers have manufactured their own chips. Apple doing so isn't going to fundamentally change it any more than Samsung making their own Exynos chips changed the Android or ChromeOS landscape.
Sad.
And in the world of computing, Apple has gotten the closest. but it has never been that simple.
Now, with integrated SOCs and the hardware/software being developed in tandem. what Apple Silicon means is that we will see the dream of an embedding system - or computing appliance - realized in actuality.
It's astounding.
We will see MUCH faster hardware, MUCH more efficient power usage, and MUCH cooler systems. Along with this, will be unheard of form factors that allow for whatever aesthetics the company wants to release.
Apple chips have come a looooong ways. But they are ready.
They currently produce The absolute BEST mobile SOCs on the market.
And they are applying that to desktop class silicon.
Dang.
Even if that is true, it doesn't matter as much as you think because of the price of Apple hardware and the general unavailability of most of Windows software on a Mac. As I have said before, you guys are looking at this all wrong. You are thinking: "this makes me more excited than ever to be a Mac owner!" As well it should. But that isn't the issue. The real issue is: "why does this make me - as a Windows user - any more likely to buy a Mac than I was before?"
For you, who loves the Apple ecosystem, the Mac being on the same hardware/software platform as the iPad and iPhone is outstanding. But if you don't own an iPhone (15% market share) or iPad (35% market share) in the first place ... or if you own an iPhone/iPad but also have a Windows computer (as most do!) then why do you care? You don't. You only care about how much your device costs and whether it runs what you want it to run as you did before.
As far as punting on the software that runs on the platform ... when has Apple ever been a software company? They aren't. They are a hardware company. They get involved in software only inasmuch as the competition forces them to. You can basically say that software is to Apple what hardware is to Google.
Also, I can answer your question. Apple doesn't care about competing with Wintel as much as you think. (If they did, it would be a crushing loss. At no time have Macs ever had more than 15% market share, and at times it has been less than 3% market share. More Chromebooks sell than Macs.) Apple cares more about platform convergence. Unifying iOS,iPadOS, macOS, watchOS, tvOS and HomeKit. Instead of chasing the people who don't use their products, giving the people who do use their products the best possible experience and performance. People who use Windows (and to a lesser extent Android, ChromeOS and Linux) will be irrelevant. But people who use Apple hardware will be VERY satisfied and much less likely to jump ship.
Apple and Wintel will diverge. The hardware will diverge further. The software will diverge. Apple people will become totally different from Windows people. They may even work in different industries, as you literally may not be able to do the work in an Apple shop on a Wintel machine and vice versa. And Apple is totally fine if that happens.
There isn't a single app that truly matters that runs on a Samsung smartphone or tablet that won't run on the iPhone SE 2 or the base iPad. Not the case in the Windows world and you know it.
Palm
HTC Mobile
RIM/Blackberry
Creative Zen
Microsoft Zune
Windows for Tablets
Android for tablets
Windows Mobile
Windows Phone
Windows Plays For Sure
Rhapsody
Google Music
Google Wear OS
Loads of products have fallen by the wayside because they couldn't compete with Apple hardware, software or services. Android and others probably had a hand in putting down some of them too, but it was significantly and/or largely an Apple effect.
Apple only just announced the transition, they haven't acknowledged anything by "not even trying" to build any of their Mac products with an Apple Silicon chip yet, because they haven't built any of their Mac products with an Applicon chip yet. You don't know what they're building, or trying to build, and you'll only know when they announce it. That'll come with time, and will bring Applicon that's probably significantly more powerful that what we've seen before because laptops and desktops have a lot more cooling options than iPhone and iPads. Apple will not be sticking the same chips that are in iPads into their Pro-grade Macs.
And after looking at that mobile list, it looks like Apple is aiming at the PC industry with the future of the Mac. upside down (or rightsize up?) Marketshare shift coming right up...
Research In Motion (later renamed to BlackBerry Ltd.)? Effectively gone. They have left hardware entirely and moved to a market which Apple isn't in.
Palm? Before the iPhone was introduced, their CEO said "We’ve learned and struggled for a few years here figuring out how to make a decent phone. PC guys are not going to just figure this out. They’re not going to just walk in." The company was sold to HP in 2010 and all their product development ended in 2011, about four years after the iPhone shipped.
Motorola Mobility? Gone.
HP? Out of the phone market.
Google was over a year late to the party because Android had been aimed at BlackBerry. They had to spend a huge amount of developer effort (and therefore money) changing to go after the iPhone. While they couldn't come up with it on their own, they were fortunate enough to recognize the future when it was shown to them.
HTC was killed off by Samsung and other Android OEMs.
Android tablets have 65% market share. Samsung alone sells more tablets than Apple does Macs. Android tablets being dead is nonsense from the tech media that never uses them.
Google Play Music still very much exists and is HUGE overseas where very few people use iPhones. And it is merely being folded into YouTube Music.
Wear OS was trash before the Apple Watch even entered the market. Most people didn't know that the product even existed.
Also, the mobile market was TINY and YOUNG when the iPhone defined it. By contrast the PC market is HUGE and has been in existence since the 1970s. Apple was a new entrant to the mobile market. But they have been in the PC market ... since the 1970s. And guess what? Apple has shifted CPUs lots of times before. Their original CPU. Then PowerPC. Then Intel. The only thing different than before is their using a chip that they designed.
So no. It isn't true at all.
And you are forgetting the main thing: to have an impact on the CPU industry, Apple is going to have to make CPUs that run Windows, Linux and ChromeOS devices made by manufacturers other than Apple. If that doesn't happen: Qualcomm is going to have to make CPUs that are better than Intel's. And even if that DOES happen, Windows on ARM will have to perform BETTER than Wintel!
You guys are acting as if Windows is going to go away. Or Windows on ARM is going to get better. Or Qualcomm is going to match the Ax. None of those are going to happen.
AWS is a way to provide very substantial computing resources on-demand for professional use cases. But right now, AWS isn't very easy to use. There may be an opening here.
While I enjoy reading most of your well reasoned comments, this is the only part that you have got consistently incorrect. And others have pointed out clearly as well. Let me give it one last try - the A14 for iPhone 12 generation will have a TDP of 5 watts to 7 watts. Do you seriously think that the same A14 with the same TDP will be used in Macbooks???
I think perhaps there is a difference here in where we are placing the goal posts.
I think that for Apple, a 20% worldwide marketshare for the Mac is the upper attainable limit -- I can't see how they could go higher than that without some very substantial changes that go well beyond anything we could predict today. Today, their share is about 7%, so this would be a big sales boost for them, but Wintel would still have 80% o the market. So, it could be that we aren't in huge disagreement -- maybe just talking about it differently.