The article gets many things wrong. The transition from 680x0 to PowerPC was a very good move. The article implies that the switch to PowerPC was a bad move because no one else in the industry used PowerPC chips. That had nothing to do with it. The 680x0 architecture was going nowhere. The 68060 to replace the 68040 was not much faster and required a lot of re-writes to take advantage of it. The PowerPC, on the other hand, offered huge performance boosts that were much faster than Intel at the time. Remember the famous snail ad? That gave Apple a big boost, especially with the G3, G4, and G5.
The shift to Intel had nothing to do with compatibility. The PowerPC reached its limit. The G5 ran too hot for any type of portable use, and it would actually run slower than a G4, if they managed to shoehorn it into a PowerBook chassis. IBM also could not produce any faster G5 chips for the desktop. Intel, on the other hand, had the performance per watt and that is what Apple was looking for. The Core Duo chips were far superior, and made the MacBook Pro run 5x faster than the G4. Remember, Apple could not make the products they wanted to make with the PowerPC roadmap. Also, when Apple acquired NeXT, OpenStep was already x86 native. All versions of OS X were 100% x86 native behind closed doors. Apple knew the PowerPC was reaching its limit and had been planning for Intel years before the switch took place. Boot Camp and running Windows natively was just an added bonus.
The need to run Windows on Mac is still quite popular for running Windows as a VM on Mac, especially for developing software, so that might be a minor loss. But Apple shifting to their own processors allows them to release new hardware on their schedule, and not be dependent on Intel. Apple has done very well with the Intel Macs and it is amazing that the Intel Macs have outlasted both PowerPC and 680x0 Macs in longevity....at 14 years.
Of course the transition to PPC was necessary, well intentioned and the best option at the time. Apple had few other viable alternatives. As I wrote earlier, Apple had attempted to develop its own silicon in the 80s and failed. It also worked with Acorn to develop a mobile chip (for Newton) that wouldn't have been powerful enough for the Mac. PPC was the right decision at the time.
The comment that "the difficulty of that transition and its unexpected result might suggest that in hindsight, it was ultimately a mistake to have attempted such a complex and risky task" isn't saying it was a mistake, it's an acknowledgment that in hindsight, it could appear that it was a mistake because it didn't work out as expected. It then notes that despite this, all the work that delivered the PowerPC transition was later applied to the Intel transition. And of course, it also informed the work to develop iOS on ARM.
As others have noted, NeXT's work in parallel to move its NeXTSTEP OS and tools to PPC also contributed to the knowledge and experience that made its way to Apple as it completed its PPC transition and then moved to Intel (leveraging NeXT's work in x86; Apple's own "StarTrek" x86 work hadn't resulted in a shippable product).
By 2005, PowerPC hadn't really "reached a limit." G5 was fast and achieved a clean, shipping 64-bit architecture well in advance of Intel. The problem wasn't architectural. IBM could have kept going, and other PPC partners could have done the work to develop a more mobile friendly, power effecient chip for notebooks. The real issue was that there simply wasn't any economies of scale or shipping volumes to justify either of those efforts.
Intel meanwhile had acquired its new Core x86 architecture from research and development centered in Isreal. It's own Pentium 4 had indeed reached a dead end in performance per watt. When Apple saw what Intel had with Core, it realized it could get a CPU for its MacBooks and eventually gain chips to replace the G5, even if it required a digression back into 32 bit CPUs for a period of time. It had few other options.
Intel also wanted to get its x86 chips into iPad, but by that point Apple realized it could deliver its own customized ARM SoC and have one unified processor architecture for all of its iOS devices, and eventually build that into silicon it could use to power Macs. When did it figure that out? Probably not in 2010. But the radical ambition that drove A-series chips each year was justified by both iPad sales and iPhone sales, and eventually presented itself as an option and alternative to Intel. When I wrote this last year, the comments all complained I was nuts and way too optimistic. Yet here we are.
The moral of the story, is Software and Hardware vendors, need(ed) to learn how to shift from CHIP to CHIP, or Platform to Platform, or your ecosystem is BLOWN!
Where others in the last 40 years haven't done squat, Apple is in SUCH a good position, that if, some other Processor came out in the future, Apple will be right there able adapt and shift to take advantage and get a leap and a boost in technology.
Where Windows users are still running Microsoft's piece, and are suffering. They are trying to use ARM for Windows, but heck they lost out on the whole consumer PHONE market and had to almost practically completely move to a BUSINESS ONLY model, if not for Xbox. Plus the engineers that ran the software in the past are long gone and the company is left with a code base they can't even MANAGE. oh and PC gaming yeah iRacing sure whatever.
But we are moving into a whole new realm with PS5 and Xbox Series whatever, so as far as gaming is concered please, you haven't a clue... I mean how many years are you gonna be a "PC gamer?" 50? gees...
Gaming is moving to Handheld and Console, you must be blind! (must be too much Oculus)
adapt...change shift shape...
That's Apple's Power... it's been a long road, but lastly there is more to Software and Hardware, than playing a game with a really fast video card. The frameworks that are waay waaay more robust and solid, are what matters most.
If you had to bet what SYSTEM, we will be using in a 100 years, would you BET on Windows? or UNIX/Darwin/Linux?
I gotta go SNL is on! More Comedy TIME!!!
Yeah, your opinions about Microsoft’s code and how/if they can manage it are as valuable as you are well-informed, which is less than zero, as they’re ravings of a wishful mind spinning a narrative.
Microsoft has long catered to mostly enterprise: that’s their bread and butter. Apple? Consumers are their focus. Enterprises HATE when the OS APIs changes out from under them quickly and are removed, because that means they’re stuck needing to constantly rewrite code that works fine, only because the OS changed. Enterprises very commonly have custom-written LOB applications unique to their needs, and they’ll keep using them as long as they can. They’re not cheap to write to start with, or change. This is a huge reason why Apple and Microsoft are largely complementary business models along with how they make their money. I’d be surprised if you could find a business application written for OSX (2001) that is still used without having undergone a lot of changes to enable to even execute on the latest MacOS version: most Windows software that old will run without having required code changes. That backwards compatibility is a business asset, rapid OS change in removing/changing APIs that work is a major liability.
“ Apple can radically take future Macs in a new direction that will leave behind standard PCs the same way that iPad has left simpler Android tablets in the dust, or the way iPhone silicon has rapidly advanced beyond what is even available in an Android phone.”
This article fails to consider AMD’s innovation on x86. Zen 3 is a dominant part and Zen 4 will be on 5 nanometer. Kudos to Apple to innovating, but x86 has such an entrenched install base, both in the consumer and server markets that it’s unlikely the bulk of users will move, especially given AMD’s performance. What may end up happening is, both intel and AMD innovate , and their chips will exceed Apple’s offerings. And the question will be, was Apple wise to move on?
Only time will tell.
You’re trying to create a possible future based on a past and present that just isn’t happening. Intel has failed to land any really significant performance leaps in six years. All we’ve had from them is slightly faster chips that draw more power while generating more heat. AMD will still lack anything close to the optimisations that Apple needs to build AI and AR into laptops that run fast and run cool.
I agree that x86 installed base isn’t going anywhere, but no one makes any progress by catering for the ‘entrenched’. Apple wants a single hardware/software stack that scales from watches to servers and covers. Intel doesn’t have that and neither does AMD.
What you failed to consider is that is more to processors than performance.
Microsoft has long catered to mostly enterprise: that’s their bread and butter. "applications unique to their needs, and they’ll keep using them as long as they can." They’re not cheap to write to start with, or change.
Haha, informed, about what? How the whole world runs on CUSTOM BUILT WINDOWS DATABASE APPLICATONS for each individual company with no interoperability? And how each and every damn company has been LOCKED into those apps for the LAST 30 years? and how they are constantly extorted to have to stay with the platform? Yeah whatever...
PLEASE PLEASE, it's a Windows World I am not going to doubt that or disagree with that, but it's why practically everywhere we go and try to do stuff those, 20 year old EXEs, can't even function, and crash... "Oh sorry the computer is acting up, just give me a sec" Every time I leave the house... it's why the country is in SHAMBLES! Not saying Apple/Mac could have done any better during certain dark days, but YOU'RE UP Microsoft! Let's see IT
See you in the next RESET of this PLANET when the human beings make a better choice as far as their future... I'll stay happy in my Apple Ecosystem, where everything (99.9%), YES DOES work, because I can read before installing!
DATABASES, wow what amazing flipping Business App, with data that can't be managed, extracted or ported BRAVO man wow...
What other apps? Name some apps? Manual Medical Equipment Drivers? DATABASES for business are 99.9% of the Custom Apps...
See you in 10 years, and we'll see how much -ishful thinking I do over here...
(I stay informed on the Microsoft platform very well, how many failed OSes have they dropped in the last 5 years, what 10? 15?)
Microsoft has long catered to mostly enterprise: that’s their bread and butter. "applications unique to their needs, and they’ll keep using them as long as they can." They’re not cheap to write to start with, or change.
Haha, informed, about what? How the whole world runs on CUSTOM BUILT WINDOWS DATABASE APPLICATONS for each individual company with no interoperability? And how each and every damn company has been LOCKED into those apps for the LAST 30 years? and how they are constantly extorted to have to stay with the platform? Yeah whatever...
PLEASE PLEASE, it's a Windows World I am not going to doubt that or disagree with that, but it's why practically everywhere we go and try to do stuff those, 20 year old EXEs, can't even function, and crash... "Oh sorry the computer is acting up, just give me a sec" Every time I leave the house... it's why the country is in SHAMBLES! Not saying Apple/Mac could have done any better during certain dark days, but YOU'RE UP Microsoft! Let's see IT
See you in the next RESET of this PLANET when the human beings make a better choice as far as their future... I'll stay happy in my Apple Ecosystem, where everything (99.9%), YES DOES work, because I can read before installing!
DATABASES, wow what amazing flipping Business App, with data that can't be managed, extracted or ported BRAVO man wow...
What other apps? Name some apps? Manual Medical Equipment Drivers? DATABASES for business are 99.9% of the Custom Apps...
See you in 10 years, and we'll see how much -ishful thinking I do over here...
(I stay informed on the Microsoft platform very well, how many failed OSes have they dropped in the last 5 years, what 10? 15?)
I am assuming things won’t change from the way it works now on Intel Macs, but curious if anyone knows definitively if users will only be allowed to download software through the Apple App Store for Apple SI Macs (like iOS apps work) or if users will be able to download apps directly from vendor websites, external drives etc.
Looking at Big Sur beta, you can still download apps. If that goes away, I will never ever touch macOS in my life, and move to Windows or Linux instead.
This article paints a too rosy picture of the transition. The fact of the matter is that moving away from x86 will end Mac’s “best of both worlds” status. That means no more running Windows software.
In over 20 years and Thousands of both Mac & Windows Users I have serviced, I have yet to meet ONE person who wants or needs to run Windows on a Mac. It's two separate Worlds plain and simple. Anyone who thinks otherwise is FUBAR.
Then you clearly are only looking after little old ladies with their home usage
There are a lot of us who need to use Windows Software...that isn't available on the Mac - but hate Windows and would rather run in Parallels...
The title is about the future, the content about the past.
Here’s a thought about the future — I wonder if “desktop AI/ML” will define the Mac of the 2020s the way desktop publishing did in the 80s.
Combine user friendly tools for training models with your data with uniquely powerful hardware. Train on Mac, deploy on iPhone
Yeah, I read through all that to only get 5nm. But one thing is guaranteed-this is about PROFITS. I'm sure Desktop ARM chips will be cheaper to make and will have greater profit margin. I'm hoping Apple tries to increase its volume but won't hold my breath on this. With the move to an arm based architecture I am expecting macOS to become more iPhone/ipad like as they share a common software base. SuperOS for the future.
DED is usually very good a reiterating the history of Apple's rise to dominance, but doesn't have the same track record with prognostication about the future.
You should actually look into my "track record in prognosticating the future" and then issue a humble apology.
With 7 to 8% marketshare of macOS there are still a lot of windows laptops and PCs and Chromebooks out there and daily thousands are sold. The largest market chunks are 300 dollar Chromebooks and 500 dollar laptops schools, households and businesses buy.
That the A14T or A14X outperform some Intel chips may be well true, but irrelevant as you can’t buy them for 500-700 dollar. And what about AMD Ryzen 5000 series? Will the A14x/t be faster as well?
The figure: “Windows units sold as a multiple of Apple devices. Source: Horace Dediu“ (link to source below) should probably have been made with the y-axis beginning at 1 instead of zero, as a ratio of zero doesn’t make any sense!
Or rather, the analyst should have been bold enough to predict the future that begins on Tuesday—for which the background and preparations are explained in this article—and illustrated how reached parity with windows units, and then reversed the historical dominance of windows over in the coming years, as explained in the last part of this article.
Exciting times! I very much hope that Intel survives the transition to Silicon for the same reason I hope that Windows, Samsung, Google, Android etc. also remains as major players in the future: Diversity, differences, contrasts and nuances Trump... 👀 simplicity 😉
Microsoft has long catered to mostly enterprise: that’s their bread and butter. "applications unique to their needs, and they’ll keep using them as long as they can." They’re not cheap to write to start with, or change.
Haha, informed, about what? How the whole world runs on CUSTOM BUILT WINDOWS DATABASE APPLICATONS for each individual company with no interoperability? And how each and every damn company has been LOCKED into those apps for the LAST 30 years? and how they are constantly extorted to have to stay with the platform? Yeah whatever...
PLEASE PLEASE, it's a Windows World I am not going to doubt that or disagree with that, but it's why practically everywhere we go and try to do stuff those, 20 year old EXEs, can't even function, and crash... "Oh sorry the computer is acting up, just give me a sec" Every time I leave the house... it's why the country is in SHAMBLES! Not saying Apple/Mac could have done any better during certain dark days, but YOU'RE UP Microsoft! Let's see IT
See you in the next RESET of this PLANET when the human beings make a better choice as far as their future... I'll stay happy in my Apple Ecosystem, where everything (99.9%), YES DOES work, because I can read before installing!
DATABASES, wow what amazing flipping Business App, with data that can't be managed, extracted or ported BRAVO man wow...
What other apps? Name some apps? Manual Medical Equipment Drivers? DATABASES for business are 99.9% of the Custom Apps...
See you in 10 years, and we'll see how much -ishful thinking I do over here...
(I stay informed on the Microsoft platform very well, how many failed OSes have they dropped in the last 5 years, what 10? 15?)
The title is about the future, the content about the past.
Here’s a thought about the future — I wonder if “desktop AI/ML” will define the Mac of the 2020s the way desktop publishing did in the 80s.
Combine user friendly tools for training models with your data with uniquely powerful hardware. Train on Mac, deploy on iPhone
Yeah, I read through all that to only get 5nm. But one thing is guaranteed-this is about PROFITS. I'm sure Desktop ARM chips will be cheaper to make and will have greater profit margin. I'm hoping Apple tries to increase its volume but won't hold my breath on this. With the move to an arm based architecture I am expecting macOS to become more iPhone/ipad like as they share a common software base. SuperOS for the future.
DED is usually very good a reiterating the history of Apple's rise to dominance, but doesn't have the same track record with prognostication about the future.
You should actually look into my "track record in prognosticating the future" and then issue a humble apology.
With 7 to 8% marketshare of macOS there are still a lot of windows laptops and PCs and Chromebooks out there and daily thousands are sold. The largest market chunks are 300 dollar Chromebooks and 500 dollar laptops schools, households and businesses buy.
That the A14T or A14X outperform some Intel chips may be well true, but irrelevant as you can’t buy them for 500-700 dollar. And what about AMD Ryzen 5000 series? Will the A14x/t be faster as well?
This is partly the issue with Mac sales being largely flat (except for a pandemic related spike), they're just too expensive. Yes a Mac's hardware might last longer than a really cheap PC, but I would hope so at 2x the price. Getting a new PC once every 3 years for $700 is still cheaper than a $1500 Mac once every 6 years. And the replacement $700 PC is probably going to be quicker than the then 3 year old Mac. That $700 PC will probably get updates for longer than the Mac too; Windows 10 will run just fine on my old 2009 Macbook Pro, but Apple dropped support in 2016's Sierra.
Windows used to be terrible too, and PCs used to be junk. Those with their heads under a rock or those so obsessed with Apple will tell you the same, but it's not the case anymore. Windows 10 is vastly better than the crap that was Windows XP/Vista/8. Most of the issues that Apple ridiculed in the "switch" ads of yore no longer exist. And yet Apple still charges the same premium for the Macs, as if they are still 10x better than a PC. But MS has largely caught up. Android vs iOS is in a similar position to ~10.6 to Vista. iOS is 10x better than Android. One big Windows downside is it's not Unix based (though I wouldn't be surprised if eventually, it uses the Linux kernel), but other than that, - and it pains me to say this as an Apple devotee for 20 years, it's actually not too bad.
Now that AS is coming to desktop, I don’t think they are going to hide the specs on Notebook and Desktop. I also don’t think it will just be the A14T, and you have to use Geekbench to see the clock and cores.
I think you will have just like you have now with Intel listed on MBs and iMacs.
2 option example for 16-inch MacBook Pro:
Standard Model for $2,399 - “Apple 14th gen (A14Z) 3.0 GHz 10-core processor (6 high power and 4 high efficiency)”
Next model for $2,799 - “Apple 14th gen (A14Z) 3.4 GHz 14-core processor ( 10 high power and 4 high efficiency)”
I wonder if they will mention turbo boost or peak clock speed as well.
iMac would be same, but A14T series. You’d have 2 or 3 options.
I’ll put money on Apple taking the switch to ASi to rationalize the price model. Right now there is a $1,300 price gap between MacBook Air and the next nearest Mac laptop. I expect the Air to keep that sub 1000 price point but a new MacBook to slot in around 1500. Perhaps an Air + with twice the battery life, or perhaps a rugged MacBook with rubberized surface and water tight body, maybe just a 16” Air.
What I don’t expect is a sub $900 MacBook. I expect Apple to continue push its iPad up against Chrome laptops. They will never chase such small margins. Period.
I’ll put money on Apple taking the switch to ASi to rationalize the price model. Right now there is a $1,300 price gap between MacBook Air and the next nearest Mac laptop. I expect the Air to keep that sub 1000 price point but a new MacBook to slot in around 1500. Perhaps an Air + with twice the battery life, or perhaps a rugged MacBook with rubberized surface and water tight body, maybe just a 16” Air.
What I don’t expect is a sub $900 MacBook. I expect Apple to continue push its iPad up against Chrome laptops. They will never chase such small margins. Period.
Where do you live where there is such a difference in price between the MacBook Air and the next nearest Mac laptop? Looking on the Apple Store app shows this, starting at base model prices (not even the most useful comparisons) in the US:
$999 for 1.1 Ghz base frequency dual core i3 processor, 8 GB RAM, 256 GB SSD (MacBook Air)
$1299 for 1.4 Ghz base frequency quad core i5, 8 GB RAM, 256 GB SSD (13” MacBook Pro)
$2399 for 2.6 Ghz base frequency hexa core i7, 16 GB RAM, 512 GB SSD (16” MacBook Pro)
note 2 variables for minimum configuration can’t be reduced in 16” MacBook Pro to compare: SSD, RAM.
Let’s check what’d be the minimal upgraded 13” MacBook Pro to control for those 2: New price is $1699, so a $300 change in price to account for doubling of SSD and RAM. We’re not even accounting for other additions you can’t get in 13”-16” comparables, like 16” all have discrete GPUs, as the form factor can support them, you also double Thunderbolt ports.
But wait, there’s more! If you keep SSD, RAM the same from 13” MacBook Pro to 16” but you max out CPU for 13” (1.7ghz base frequency quad-core i7) the price is now: $1999
your argument falls horribly flat when you spread out all the options available. Going to 16” gets you a big jump in options with a relatively lower bump in price. Not saying their machines are cheap, but I look at value: I buy for long-term software development capacity, and lifespan.
A 13” machine isn’t a good choice for me for multiple reasons, so I got a 16” late 2019 MBP with 2.3ghz i9 (seems certain new Apple Silicon laptop CPU will blow that away, A14 on iPad Air 4 blows it away on geekbench 5 single core) with only 1 TB SSD (I don’t do huge video edits, but software dev stuff uses space, and 512 GB added with other long-term stuff would be annoying) and 64 GB RAM with maxed-out GPU (I use virtual machines, possibly multiple at a time) and sometimes I’ll do heavy graphics. Not a cheap machine, but after Apple stops providing new Intel MacOS versions, it’ll make a spiffy Windows laptop: operating systems (at least Windows) hasn’t been growing in RAM requirements to be viable for many years. 64 GB RAM will be more than enough for longer than the machine will likely survive in regular use before replacement, That means I don’t need to waste time shopping for new machines for a long time.
Time has a meaningful monetary value. Unless there are long-term electrical/mechanical failures of that model/my machine, this will save me a lot of time, thus money. I make enough effective hourly this makes more time/money sense than going low-end and regularly updating.
After reading all the comments, I have one curiousity: Why is Dan so hostile to anything coming out of China? Seems to me Apple’s (and Tesla’s) long term success is muchly predicated on long term success in China. Apple does not need MAGA (make Apple great again). Neither does Dan.
Meet my grandson. He asked for a MacBook for Christmas so I got him one -- thinking he would use it for school (little knowing that Corona Virus was coming right around the corner). But soon i saw it sitting all lonely in a corner by itself. It turns out both he and his mom hate MacOS and refused to use it.
So, I installed WIndows 10 under Bootcamp. Now he uses it everyday and his mom wants one too and has been trying to steal his -- but he'll have none of it! They both love his MacBook Air now that it runs Windows 10.
That's a damning indictment of Windows laptop manufacturers: it means Apple unintentionally makes better Windows computers than makers for whom Windows is their primary focus.
Comments
The comment that "the difficulty of that transition and its unexpected result might suggest that in hindsight, it was ultimately a mistake to have attempted such a complex and risky task" isn't saying it was a mistake, it's an acknowledgment that in hindsight, it could appear that it was a mistake because it didn't work out as expected. It then notes that despite this, all the work that delivered the PowerPC transition was later applied to the Intel transition. And of course, it also informed the work to develop iOS on ARM.
As others have noted, NeXT's work in parallel to move its NeXTSTEP OS and tools to PPC also contributed to the knowledge and experience that made its way to Apple as it completed its PPC transition and then moved to Intel (leveraging NeXT's work in x86; Apple's own "StarTrek" x86 work hadn't resulted in a shippable product).
By 2005, PowerPC hadn't really "reached a limit." G5 was fast and achieved a clean, shipping 64-bit architecture well in advance of Intel. The problem wasn't architectural. IBM could have kept going, and other PPC partners could have done the work to develop a more mobile friendly, power effecient chip for notebooks. The real issue was that there simply wasn't any economies of scale or shipping volumes to justify either of those efforts.
Intel meanwhile had acquired its new Core x86 architecture from research and development centered in Isreal. It's own Pentium 4 had indeed reached a dead end in performance per watt. When Apple saw what Intel had with Core, it realized it could get a CPU for its MacBooks and eventually gain chips to replace the G5, even if it required a digression back into 32 bit CPUs for a period of time. It had few other options.
Intel also wanted to get its x86 chips into iPad, but by that point Apple realized it could deliver its own customized ARM SoC and have one unified processor architecture for all of its iOS devices, and eventually build that into silicon it could use to power Macs. When did it figure that out? Probably not in 2010. But the radical ambition that drove A-series chips each year was justified by both iPad sales and iPhone sales, and eventually presented itself as an option and alternative to Intel. When I wrote this last year, the comments all complained I was nuts and way too optimistic. Yet here we are.
Microsoft has long catered to mostly enterprise: that’s their bread and butter. Apple? Consumers are their focus. Enterprises HATE when the OS APIs changes out from under them quickly and are removed, because that means they’re stuck needing to constantly rewrite code that works fine, only because the OS changed. Enterprises very commonly have custom-written LOB applications unique to their needs, and they’ll keep using them as long as they can. They’re not cheap to write to start with, or change. This is a huge reason why Apple and Microsoft are largely complementary business models along with how they make their money. I’d be surprised if you could find a business application written for OSX (2001) that is still used without having undergone a lot of changes to enable to even execute on the latest MacOS version: most Windows software that old will run without having required code changes. That backwards compatibility is a business asset, rapid OS change in removing/changing APIs that work is a major liability.
You’re trying to create a possible future based on a past and present that just isn’t happening. Intel has failed to land any really significant performance leaps in six years. All we’ve had from them is slightly faster chips that draw more power while generating more heat. AMD will still lack anything close to the optimisations that Apple needs to build AI and AR into laptops that run fast and run cool.
Nope. You just didn’t read it properly.
PLEASE PLEASE, it's a Windows World I am not going to doubt that or disagree with that, but it's why practically everywhere we go and try to do stuff those, 20 year old EXEs, can't even function, and crash... "Oh sorry the computer is acting up, just give me a sec" Every time I leave the house... it's why the country is in SHAMBLES! Not saying Apple/Mac could have done any better during certain dark days, but YOU'RE UP Microsoft! Let's see IT
See you in the next RESET of this PLANET when the human beings make a better choice as far as their future... I'll stay happy in my Apple Ecosystem, where everything (99.9%), YES DOES work, because I can read before installing!
DATABASES, wow what amazing flipping Business App, with data that can't be managed, extracted or ported BRAVO man wow...
What other apps? Name some apps? Manual Medical Equipment Drivers? DATABASES for business are 99.9% of the Custom Apps...
See you in 10 years, and we'll see how much -ishful thinking I do over here...
(I stay informed on the Microsoft platform very well, how many failed OSes have they dropped in the last 5 years, what 10? 15?)
Get informed dude, yeah informed ha
There are a lot of us who need to use Windows Software...that isn't available on the Mac - but hate Windows and would rather run in Parallels...
Either you are lying or a moron
The figure: “Windows units sold as a multiple of Apple devices. Source: Horace Dediu“ (link to source below) should probably have been made with the y-axis beginning at 1 instead of zero, as a ratio of zero doesn’t make any sense!
http://www.asymco.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Screen-Shot-2014-01-13-at-1-13-3.09.51-PM.png
Or rather, the analyst should have been bold enough to predict the future that begins on Tuesday—for which the background and preparations are explained in this article—and illustrated how reached parity with windows units, and then reversed the historical dominance of windows over in the coming years, as explained in the last part of this article.
Exciting times!
I very much hope that Intel survives the transition to Silicon for the same reason I hope that Windows, Samsung, Google, Android etc. also remains as major players in the future: Diversity, differences, contrasts and nuances Trump... 👀 simplicity 😉
This is partly the issue with Mac sales being largely flat (except for a pandemic related spike), they're just too expensive. Yes a Mac's hardware might last longer than a really cheap PC, but I would hope so at 2x the price. Getting a new PC once every 3 years for $700 is still cheaper than a $1500 Mac once every 6 years. And the replacement $700 PC is probably going to be quicker than the then 3 year old Mac. That $700 PC will probably get updates for longer than the Mac too; Windows 10 will run just fine on my old 2009 Macbook Pro, but Apple dropped support in 2016's Sierra.
Windows used to be terrible too, and PCs used to be junk. Those with their heads under a rock or those so obsessed with Apple will tell you the same, but it's not the case anymore. Windows 10 is vastly better than the crap that was Windows XP/Vista/8. Most of the issues that Apple ridiculed in the "switch" ads of yore no longer exist. And yet Apple still charges the same premium for the Macs, as if they are still 10x better than a PC. But MS has largely caught up. Android vs iOS is in a similar position to ~10.6 to Vista. iOS is 10x better than Android. One big Windows downside is it's not Unix based (though I wouldn't be surprised if eventually, it uses the Linux kernel), but other than that, - and it pains me to say this as an Apple devotee for 20 years, it's actually not too bad.
Now that AS is coming to desktop, I don’t think they are going to hide the specs on Notebook and Desktop. I also don’t think it will just be the A14T, and you have to use Geekbench to see the clock and cores.
I think you will have just like you have now with Intel listed on MBs and iMacs.
2 option example for 16-inch MacBook Pro:
Standard Model for $2,399 - “Apple 14th gen (A14Z) 3.0 GHz 10-core processor (6 high power and 4 high efficiency)”
Next model for $2,799 - “Apple 14th gen (A14Z) 3.4 GHz 14-core processor ( 10 high power and 4 high efficiency)”
I wonder if they will mention turbo boost or peak clock speed as well.
iMac would be same, but A14T series. You’d have 2 or 3 options.
Nov 10th is going to be the biggest announcement in Apple for at least the past 10 years.
$999 for 1.1 Ghz base frequency dual core i3 processor, 8 GB RAM, 256 GB SSD (MacBook Air)
$1299 for 1.4 Ghz base frequency quad core i5, 8 GB RAM, 256 GB SSD (13” MacBook Pro)
$2399 for 2.6 Ghz base frequency hexa core i7, 16 GB RAM, 512 GB SSD (16” MacBook Pro)
note 2 variables for minimum configuration can’t be reduced in 16” MacBook Pro to compare: SSD, RAM.
Let’s check what’d be the minimal upgraded 13” MacBook Pro to control for those 2:
New price is $1699, so a $300 change in price to account for doubling of SSD and RAM. We’re not even accounting for other additions you can’t get in 13”-16” comparables, like 16” all have discrete GPUs, as the form factor can support them, you also double Thunderbolt ports.
your argument falls horribly flat when you spread out all the options available. Going to 16” gets you a big jump in options with a relatively lower bump in price. Not saying their machines are cheap, but I look at value: I buy for long-term software development capacity, and lifespan.
A 13” machine isn’t a good choice for me for multiple reasons, so I got a 16” late 2019 MBP with 2.3ghz i9 (seems certain new Apple Silicon laptop CPU will blow that away, A14 on iPad Air 4 blows it away on geekbench 5 single core) with only 1 TB SSD (I don’t do huge video edits, but software dev stuff uses space, and 512 GB added with other long-term stuff would be annoying) and 64 GB RAM with maxed-out GPU (I use virtual machines, possibly multiple at a time) and sometimes I’ll do heavy graphics. Not a cheap machine, but after Apple stops providing new Intel MacOS versions, it’ll make a spiffy Windows laptop: operating systems (at least Windows) hasn’t been growing in RAM requirements to be viable for many years. 64 GB RAM will be more than enough for longer than the machine will likely survive in regular use before replacement, That means I don’t need to waste time shopping for new machines for a long time.
Time has a meaningful monetary value. Unless there are long-term electrical/mechanical failures of that model/my machine, this will save me a lot of time, thus money. I make enough effective hourly this makes more time/money sense than going low-end and regularly updating.
Please Disregard.