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.
To be fair, the article doesn't mention China, and it only makes a passing reference to Huawei -- there was disagreement in the comments between Dan and Avon B7 about that assessment, which led to Dan emphasizing Huawei's lack of transparency in virtually everything they do -- not to put too fine a point on it, but there's no reason to trust anything they say. They are not a publicly-traded company, without the scrutiny that would come with that.
So Dan is being hostile to Huawei, not China as a whole. He's also being hostile to the current leadership in China -- Xi Jinping has been basically rewriting the entire Chinese legal code, including a new law that companies must assist the government in national intelligence work. It's scary stuff, and opposing it has got nothing to do with Trump and the GOP, or the dismantling of democracy by fascists in 1930s Germany -- indeed, opposing Xi Jinping is a profoundly pro-Chinese stance, just like opposing the Republican assault on democratic norms in the United States is a profoundly pro-American stance.
China is a complex place. A lot of people want it to be simple, but it's not. I don't know if Xi will succeed. I do believe that if democracy and freedom of information fail here in the US, then the Chinese model of government control over the flow of information will become the norm around the world, to combat things like Putin's meddling in other countries' internal affairs.
Apple will be able to eat Windows OS shares this time. Two things. Apple Silicon Macs are rumored to last up to twenty hours on battery. And Pages, Numbers, and Keynote free applications are mature enough to be able to replace Word, Excel, and PowerPoints applications from Microsoft which are very expensive to own.
Apple will be able to eat Windows OS shares this time. Two things. Apple Silicon Macs are rumored to last up to twenty hours on battery. And Pages, Numbers, and Keynote free applications are mature enough to be able to replace Word, Excel, and PowerPoints applications from Microsoft which are very expensive to own.
Pages, Numbers and Keynote will never replace Office. Thankfully, Office 365 is dirt cheap for what you get (esp the family plan) and it works on the Mac and iOS devices as well.
Apple isn’t going to make gains in the PC and laptop market by offering software replacements for what people already use.
They’re going to advance by making devices that run all their existing software, and do it better. And outside of the small number of people who run VMs or Bootcamp this is exactly what Apple Silicon will do.
Think of the billion iPhone users and the fact most of them (90%) have a Windows machine. Now all their iOS software can also run on a Mac (and some Mac software will make it to iOS) which makes the concept of Continuity even more appealing (being able to seamlessly switch between their iPhone or Mac for everything, not just certain things).
Apple will be able to eat Windows OS shares this time. Two things. Apple Silicon Macs are rumored to last up to twenty hours on battery. And Pages, Numbers, and Keynote free applications are mature enough to be able to replace Word, Excel, and PowerPoints applications from Microsoft which are very expensive to own.
Incredibly few people need 20 hours of battery life for a computer, because very few people are working away from a power source that long. 20 hours battery life is a nice thing, in theory, but in practice, something else has to give to get it. Note Apple has kept iPads at about 10 hours battery life from the start, with * as to “10 hours” where most people that need heavier computation needs are likely plugged into an outlet anyway.
For home use, Apple’s office suite is sufficient: with what’s expected at a lot of businesses, there are huge Numbers of spreadsheet functions used daily in Excel not provided by Apple’s software, and Pages of word processor functionality in MS Office is the same way.
All that being said, Silicon Macs will inherit a huge library of iOS/iPadOS software, even if suboptimal to use on other than a touchscreen, and for very stupidly-cheap prices for functionality, in fast hardware. If Apple announces touchscreen Macs (they’ve been known to say “we won’t do this! Then go and add it: Apple Pencil, anyone?) then things get really interesting,
SwiftUI (at 2.0 with a lot more functionality, but still needs work) makes it far easier to have cross-Apple-platform applications with amazingly little added work that look/feel native, because they are in the GUI frameworks they’re using, to a large extent. With Apple Silicon Macs testing is capable of being done on the same hardware quirks to enough certainty that it greatly eases the burden of supporting multiple types of Apple devices, and increases the potential sales opportunities.
An issue regarding platform viability for making a living via Apple platform apps are customers believing all software needs to be cheap or free, and how DARE developers try to make a profit!
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.
IMO, this shows one of the benefits customers will lose when Apple move to their processors.
And what you said about Apple being better than Windows manufacturers, that wasn't my experience a few years ago. From what I have seen, people use BootCamp because is practical, and not because is better, at least compared to high quality devices, as ThinkPad.
Apple will be able to eat Windows OS shares this time. Two things. Apple Silicon Macs are rumored to last up to twenty hours on battery. And Pages, Numbers, and Keynote free applications are mature enough to be able to replace Word, Excel, and PowerPoints applications from Microsoft which are very expensive to own.
Nope and totally irrelevant. Does not matter. Apple Silicon is about more than the Mac just like Apple’s current Axx series SoCs are about more than the iPhone. Apple Silicon is all about exploiting synergies at the silicon level just like Apple OS X is all about exploiting synergies at the software level. Windows OS and operating system market share hasn’t been part of any calculus within the Apple ecosystem for decades.
Apple will be able to eat Windows OS shares this time. Two things. Apple Silicon Macs are rumored to last up to twenty hours on battery. And Pages, Numbers, and Keynote free applications are mature enough to be able to replace Word, Excel, and PowerPoints applications from Microsoft which are very expensive to own.
Altough anything is possible, but I don't see macOS being in +1B devices as WIndows or iOS. What I see less probable, at least in my opinion, is MS Office being replaced with Apple apps, or even other suite of productivity applications. I have seen people moving to Windows to Mac and viceversa, iOS to Android and viceversa. But most users keep MS Office, doesn't matter in which platform they are. And now at $70 / year or $100 / year for six users, with 1TB per user is not expensive as you said.
Apple will be able to eat Windows OS shares this time. Two things. Apple Silicon Macs are rumored to last up to twenty hours on battery. And Pages, Numbers, and Keynote free applications are mature enough to be able to replace Word, Excel, and PowerPoints applications from Microsoft which are very expensive to own.
Pages, Numbers and Keynote will never replace Office. Thankfully, Office 365 is dirt cheap for what you get (esp the family plan) and it works on the Mac and iOS devices as well.
Apple isn’t going to make gains in the PC and laptop market by offering software replacements for what people already use.
They’re going to advance by making devices that run all their existing software, and do it better. And outside of the small number of people who run VMs or Bootcamp this is exactly what Apple Silicon will do.
Think of the billion iPhone users and the fact most of them (90%) have a Windows machine. Now all their iOS software can also run on a Mac (and some Mac software will make it to iOS) which makes the concept of Continuity even more appealing (being able to seamlessly switch between their iPhone or Mac for everything, not just certain things).
What I see is there are large number of PC users don't need to use all the functionalities of Microsoft Office software. They will transition to Macs. This is similar to the PC to smartphone transition. Many users simply use PC for emails to communicate with their children. After iPhone, they found they don't need to use their PC at all. And the iPad further accelerated the trend.
I'd be surprised of Apple will introduce models that are faster or a lot faster than the top AMD or Intel CPU's, within 2-3 years. It makes no commercial sense to do so, and the software probably won't make the transition that quickly.
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.
It's one of the many reasons I built a Hackintosh. I work in science and that skews heavily towards windows and standards. Some things are easier on the mac side, most things only work on the windows side. I'm curious about the transition, many windows tools are also moving towards ARM. Windows VM's will run fine on Apple Silicon, hopefully even faster than they do now due to several JIT implementations.
I'd be surprised of Apple will introduce models that are faster or a lot faster than the top AMD or Intel CPU's, within 2-3 years. It makes no commercial sense to do so, and the software probably won't make the transition that quickly.
Check Geekbench 5 single core of A14 and then compare that to latest Intel/AMD processors with clock speeds, then consider this is running in iPhones and iPad Air 4 already, passively cooled, with Intel/AMD CPUs actively cooled and running far warmer.
What will Apple be able to do with enough of those performance cores with active cooling?
This iPad Air 4 is faster for web browsing than my late 2019 16” MacBook Pro with i9, and not by a small amount. Geekbench single core for A14 is notably higher (multicore, i9 definitely wins).
I’m really wondering what performance will be of Apple Silicon: they may beat AMD/Intel immediately for performance out of the gate. AMD/Intel are not using as small of process nodes, so it’ll be interesting to see what things are like once all are on the same size process node.
I'd be surprised of Apple will introduce models that are faster or a lot faster than the top AMD or Intel CPU's, within 2-3 years. It makes no commercial sense to do so, and the software probably won't make the transition that quickly.
Check Geekbench 5 single core of A14 and then compare that to latest Intel/AMD processors with clock speeds, then consider this is running in iPhones and iPad Air 4 already, passively cooled, with Intel/AMD CPUs actively cooled and running far warmer.
What will Apple be able to do with enough of those performance cores with active cooling?
This iPad Air 4 is faster for web browsing than my late 2019 16” MacBook Pro with i9, and not by a small amount. Geekbench single core for A14 is notably higher (multicore, i9 definitely wins).
I’m really wondering what performance will be of Apple Silicon: they may beat AMD/Intel immediately for performance out of the gate. AMD/Intel are not using as small of process nodes, so it’ll be interesting to see what things are like once all are on the same size process node.
My newest mac is old so I can't check it for myself but I was intrigued by the web browsing speed you are getting on the iPad 4 against the i9 MBP.
Are you browsing complex webs? Is something else perhaps slowing down the web performance of the MBP? Would the same processor in a PC laptop perform as badly?
As I said further up, Apple isn't doing anything new with this move. ARM based systems already exist across virtually the entire computing spectrum.
The move is just a move. At this point perhaps more beneficial to Apple than to users in any real sense.
I've long been of the opinion that intel's failings have been a boon for the general computing world. Seeing no massive upgrades has led to older systems easily holding their own against modern systems. It's actually why I feel no need to upgrade my older systems (especially when all architecure transitions are messy at some point). They bring headaches and problems down the line - always (unless you only live for the present).
The title of this piece is a misnomer. Apple can't supercharge computing when it holds such a small part of the pie and computing is already supercharged.
I'd be surprised of Apple will introduce models that are faster or a lot faster than the top AMD or Intel CPU's, within 2-3 years. It makes no commercial sense to do so, and the software probably won't make the transition that quickly.
Check Geekbench 5 single core of A14 and then compare that to latest Intel/AMD processors with clock speeds, then consider this is running in iPhones and iPad Air 4 already, passively cooled, with Intel/AMD CPUs actively cooled and running far warmer.
What will Apple be able to do with enough of those performance cores with active cooling?
This iPad Air 4 is faster for web browsing than my late 2019 16” MacBook Pro with i9, and not by a small amount. Geekbench single core for A14 is notably higher (multicore, i9 definitely wins).
I’m really wondering what performance will be of Apple Silicon: they may beat AMD/Intel immediately for performance out of the gate. AMD/Intel are not using as small of process nodes, so it’ll be interesting to see what things are like once all are on the same size process node.
My newest mac is old so I can't check it for myself but I was intrigued by the web browsing speed you are getting on the iPad 4 against the i9 MBP.
Are you browsing complex webs? Is something else perhaps slowing down the web performance of the MBP? Would the same processor in a PC laptop perform as badly?
As I said further up, Apple isn't doing anything new with this move. ARM based systems already exist across virtually the entire computing spectrum.
The move is just a move. At this point perhaps more beneficial to Apple than to users in any real sense.
I've long been of the opinion that intel's failings have been a boon for the general computing world. Seeing no massive upgrades has led to older systems easily holding their own against modern systems. It's actually why I feel no need to upgrade my older systems (especially when all architecure transitions are messy at some point). They bring headaches and problems down the line - always (unless you only live for the present).
The title of this piece is a misnomer. Apple can't supercharge computing when it holds such a small part of the pie and computing is already supercharged.
As if computing is only defined by the desktop.
Apple has a broader, and taller, technology stack to work with compared to any competitor, and Apple has the resources to continue to expand and exploit that advantage. That Apple will bias towards margins and profitability is a given, but expand their market they will. On top of that, Services for all of those Apple customers continues at a fast growing revenue source.
Oh, and web browsing is optimized in silicon, firmware, and software, for Apple mobile devices, and it should be expected that will carry over into ASi for Mac's, so an advantage over Intel should be expected.
Apple is on a path with Apple Silicon to sell 30M-40M Mac units per year. Even the initial launches are going to embarrass the performance (including battery) vs. Intel based PCs
And, there will be a cadence of annual product releases in Mac that we have never seen before.
All with a meaningful tailwind to gross margins
It is going to be glorious
It'll be lucky to be on a path of 25 million/year over the next 3-5 years.
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.
In over 20 years there have been billions of computers sold, so your anecdotal evidence of the rare Windows and Mac user in one very much an edge case. Major universities when they have Macs have Bootcamp. All Engineering fields if they have Macs have Bootcamp. Apple isn't making a dent like people believe around the globe deployed Mac Hardware for macOS yet, even in 2020. They are hoping to force people into ARM and macOS only to complete their vertical ecosystem.
The resources they save on supporting both x86 and ARM is minuscule in terms of labor and capital investment. Apple Silicon will never be the CPU king for its straight CPU to CPU performance metrics. They are banking on the add-on modules to be the heavy lifters. The FPGAs, DSPs, etc.
With AMD buying Xilinx they got the King of those very markets, globally in-house. AMD's own CPUs will be augmented and not resemble what they look like today moving forward.
AMD also has a license for ARM like Apple. If AMD wants it can jump to ARM only as well, and their processors have over 40 years of experience including the last ten years of experience with ARM. Xilinx has a ton of experience with ARM, even more than AMD.
Apple will always be successful with whatever ISA it has a license to use. And it is the leader in embedded consumer electronic operating systems.
You're kidding yourselves if you think after 23 years since the NeXT Merger that Apple will take over the world on the Laptop/Desktop/Workstation spaces. Apple created Bootcamp to increase sales of Macs not to move people to macOS. The hardware sales were sluggish but having Bootcamp for the professional/business world gives people the quality of Mac hardware and the requirements of their company's Microsoft Windows mandate.
The fact Microsoft hasn't seen any measurable increase of sales for their own ARM products and Windows is a sign Apple doesn't expect to double or triple their market share with ARM.
Their bread n' butter continues to be the embedded space with iOS. They could have made this transition full force three years from now and had industry leading tech via AMD for their Mac lines while Silicon quietly matures, but they jumped the shark a bit on this one.
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.
Desktop CPUs with ARM won't be less expensive to make. The cost differential is a higher profit margin as they are the one's making the CPUs thus they get to set the price targets, unlike dealing with Intel or AMD.
I'd be surprised of Apple will introduce models that are faster or a lot faster than the top AMD or Intel CPU's, within 2-3 years. It makes no commercial sense to do so, and the software probably won't make the transition that quickly.
Check Geekbench 5 single core of A14 and then compare that to latest Intel/AMD processors with clock speeds, then consider this is running in iPhones and iPad Air 4 already, passively cooled, with Intel/AMD CPUs actively cooled and running far warmer.
What will Apple be able to do with enough of those performance cores with active cooling?
This iPad Air 4 is faster for web browsing than my late 2019 16” MacBook Pro with i9, and not by a small amount. Geekbench single core for A14 is notably higher (multicore, i9 definitely wins).
I’m really wondering what performance will be of Apple Silicon: they may beat AMD/Intel immediately for performance out of the gate. AMD/Intel are not using as small of process nodes, so it’ll be interesting to see what things are like once all are on the same size process node.
My newest mac is old so I can't check it for myself but I was intrigued by the web browsing speed you are getting on the iPad 4 against the i9 MBP.
Are you browsing complex webs? Is something else perhaps slowing down the web performance of the MBP? Would the same processor in a PC laptop perform as badly?
As I said further up, Apple isn't doing anything new with this move. ARM based systems already exist across virtually the entire computing spectrum.
The move is just a move. At this point perhaps more beneficial to Apple than to users in any real sense.
I've long been of the opinion that intel's failings have been a boon for the general computing world. Seeing no massive upgrades has led to older systems easily holding their own against modern systems. It's actually why I feel no need to upgrade my older systems (especially when all architecure transitions are messy at some point). They bring headaches and problems down the line - always (unless you only live for the present).
The title of this piece is a misnomer. Apple can't supercharge computing when it holds such a small part of the pie and computing is already supercharged.
As if computing is only defined by the desktop.
Apple has a broader, and taller, technology stack to work with compared to any competitor, and Apple has the resources to continue to expand and exploit that advantage. That Apple will bias towards margins and profitability is a given, but expand their market they will. On top of that, Services for all of those Apple customers continues at a fast growing revenue source.
Oh, and web browsing is optimized in silicon, firmware, and software, for Apple mobile devices, and it should be expected that will carry over into ASi for Mac's, so an advantage over Intel should be expected.
Apple definitely does not have any such 'broader or taller technology stack to work with than any other competitor' . That is ludicrous.
Ludicrous in the extreme.
I would like you to support that claim.
Apple is a consumer electronics hardware company with consumer oriented software and entertainment platforms.
I think the point I was making about web browsing between two Apple platforms went completely over your head.
I'd be surprised of Apple will introduce models that are faster or a lot faster than the top AMD or Intel CPU's, within 2-3 years. It makes no commercial sense to do so, and the software probably won't make the transition that quickly.
Check Geekbench 5 single core of A14 and then compare that to latest Intel/AMD processors with clock speeds, then consider this is running in iPhones and iPad Air 4 already, passively cooled, with Intel/AMD CPUs actively cooled and running far warmer.
What will Apple be able to do with enough of those performance cores with active cooling?
This iPad Air 4 is faster for web browsing than my late 2019 16” MacBook Pro with i9, and not by a small amount. Geekbench single core for A14 is notably higher (multicore, i9 definitely wins).
I’m really wondering what performance will be of Apple Silicon: they may beat AMD/Intel immediately for performance out of the gate. AMD/Intel are not using as small of process nodes, so it’ll be interesting to see what things are like once all are on the same size process node.
My newest mac is old so I can't check it for myself but I was intrigued by the web browsing speed you are getting on the iPad 4 against the i9 MBP.
Are you browsing complex webs? Is something else perhaps slowing down the web performance of the MBP? Would the same processor in a PC laptop perform as badly?
As I said further up, Apple isn't doing anything new with this move. ARM based systems already exist across virtually the entire computing spectrum.
The move is just a move. At this point perhaps more beneficial to Apple than to users in any real sense.
I've long been of the opinion that intel's failings have been a boon for the general computing world. Seeing no massive upgrades has led to older systems easily holding their own against modern systems. It's actually why I feel no need to upgrade my older systems (especially when all architecure transitions are messy at some point). They bring headaches and problems down the line - always (unless you only live for the present).
The title of this piece is a misnomer. Apple can't supercharge computing when it holds such a small part of the pie and computing is already supercharged.
As if computing is only defined by the desktop.
Apple has a broader, and taller, technology stack to work with compared to any competitor, and Apple has the resources to continue to expand and exploit that advantage. That Apple will bias towards margins and profitability is a given, but expand their market they will. On top of that, Services for all of those Apple customers continues at a fast growing revenue source.
Oh, and web browsing is optimized in silicon, firmware, and software, for Apple mobile devices, and it should be expected that will carry over into ASi for Mac's, so an advantage over Intel should be expected.
Apple definitely does not have any such 'broader or taller technology stack to work with than any other competitor' . That is ludicrous.
Ludicrous in the extreme.
I would like you to support that claim.
Apple is a consumer electronics hardware company with consumer oriented software and entertainment platforms.
I think the point I was making about web browsing between two Apple platforms went completely over your head.
Pray tell, which other consumer electronics company has the mix, and breadth, of OS, hardware, firmware, software, development platform, ecosystem, and services, to match Apple?
It certainly isn't Huawei, nor Google, the search/advertising company, and it certainly isn't MS, the Windows/Enterprise/cloud/gaming company with limited hardware offerings.
Oh, and I stand by my statement that Mac OS web browsing will be faster given ASi over Intel, because Apple already did that in the existing A Series.
Feel free to post links that disprove what I have stated.
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.
In over 20 years there have been billions of computers sold, so your anecdotal evidence of the rare Windows and Mac user in one very much an edge case. Major universities when they have Macs have Bootcamp. All Engineering fields if they have Macs have Bootcamp. Apple isn't making a dent like people believe around the globe deployed Mac Hardware for macOS yet, even in 2020. They are hoping to force people into ARM and macOS only to complete their vertical ecosystem.
The resources they save on supporting both x86 and ARM is minuscule in terms of labor and capital investment. Apple Silicon will never be the CPU king for its straight CPU to CPU performance metrics. They are banking on the add-on modules to be the heavy lifters. The FPGAs, DSPs, etc.
With AMD buying Xilinx they got the King of those very markets, globally in-house. AMD's own CPUs will be augmented and not resemble what they look like today moving forward.
AMD also has a license for ARM like Apple. If AMD wants it can jump to ARM only as well, and their processors have over 40 years of experience including the last ten years of experience with ARM. Xilinx has a ton of experience with ARM, even more than AMD.
Apple will always be successful with whatever ISA it has a license to use. And it is the leader in embedded consumer electronic operating systems.
You're kidding yourselves if you think after 23 years since the NeXT Merger that Apple will take over the world on the Laptop/Desktop/Workstation spaces. Apple created Bootcamp to increase sales of Macs not to move people to macOS. The hardware sales were sluggish but having Bootcamp for the professional/business world gives people the quality of Mac hardware and the requirements of their company's Microsoft Windows mandate.
The fact Microsoft hasn't seen any measurable increase of sales for their own ARM products and Windows is a sign Apple doesn't expect to double or triple their market share with ARM.
Their bread n' butter continues to be the embedded space with iOS. They could have made this transition full force three years from now and had industry leading tech via AMD for their Mac lines while Silicon quietly matures, but they jumped the shark a bit on this one.
I only want to address a single claim you’ve made, that Apple’s CPUs will never be a leader in general CPU performance: why do you believe with such certainty that is the truth?
Apple’s current processors run cool, in phones, while beating a large number of desktop single-core Geekbench scores. Current performance for CPU silicon is no guarantee either way of what they’ll be able to accomplish in the future, especially compared to Intel/AMD with a different ISA. Anyone that knows what can and will happen with the perfect certainty you express should fully invest on such “knowledge” and become rich.
Comments
So Dan is being hostile to Huawei, not China as a whole. He's also being hostile to the current leadership in China -- Xi Jinping has been basically rewriting the entire Chinese legal code, including a new law that companies must assist the government in national intelligence work. It's scary stuff, and opposing it has got nothing to do with Trump and the GOP, or the dismantling of democracy by fascists in 1930s Germany -- indeed, opposing Xi Jinping is a profoundly pro-Chinese stance, just like opposing the Republican assault on democratic norms in the United States is a profoundly pro-American stance.
China is a complex place. A lot of people want it to be simple, but it's not. I don't know if Xi will succeed. I do believe that if democracy and freedom of information fail here in the US, then the Chinese model of government control over the flow of information will become the norm around the world, to combat things like Putin's meddling in other countries' internal affairs.
Apple isn’t going to make gains in the PC and laptop market by offering software replacements for what people already use.
They’re going to advance by making devices that run all their existing software, and do it better. And outside of the small number of people who run VMs or Bootcamp this is exactly what Apple Silicon will do.
Think of the billion iPhone users and the fact most of them (90%) have a Windows machine. Now all their iOS software can also run on a Mac (and some Mac software will make it to iOS) which makes the concept of Continuity even more appealing (being able to seamlessly switch between their iPhone or Mac for everything, not just certain things).
And what you said about Apple being better than Windows manufacturers, that wasn't my experience a few years ago. From what I have seen, people use BootCamp because is practical, and not because is better, at least compared to high quality devices, as ThinkPad.
What will Apple be able to do with enough of those performance cores with active cooling?
This iPad Air 4 is faster for web browsing than my late 2019 16” MacBook Pro with i9, and not by a small amount. Geekbench single core for A14 is notably higher (multicore, i9 definitely wins).
I’m really wondering what performance will be of Apple Silicon: they may beat AMD/Intel immediately for performance out of the gate. AMD/Intel are not using as small of process nodes, so it’ll be interesting to see what things are like once all are on the same size process node.
Are you browsing complex webs? Is something else perhaps slowing down the web performance of the MBP? Would the same processor in a PC laptop perform as badly?
As I said further up, Apple isn't doing anything new with this move. ARM based systems already exist across virtually the entire computing spectrum.
The move is just a move. At this point perhaps more beneficial to Apple than to users in any real sense.
I've long been of the opinion that intel's failings have been a boon for the general computing world. Seeing no massive upgrades has led to older systems easily holding their own against modern systems. It's actually why I feel no need to upgrade my older systems (especially when all architecure transitions are messy at some point). They bring headaches and problems down the line - always (unless you only live for the present).
The title of this piece is a misnomer. Apple can't supercharge computing when it holds such a small part of the pie and computing is already supercharged.
Apple has a broader, and taller, technology stack to work with compared to any competitor, and Apple has the resources to continue to expand and exploit that advantage. That Apple will bias towards margins and profitability is a given, but expand their market they will. On top of that, Services for all of those Apple customers continues at a fast growing revenue source.
Oh, and web browsing is optimized in silicon, firmware, and software, for Apple mobile devices, and it should be expected that will carry over into ASi for Mac's, so an advantage over Intel should be expected.
In over 20 years there have been billions of computers sold, so your anecdotal evidence of the rare Windows and Mac user in one very much an edge case. Major universities when they have Macs have Bootcamp. All Engineering fields if they have Macs have Bootcamp. Apple isn't making a dent like people believe around the globe deployed Mac Hardware for macOS yet, even in 2020. They are hoping to force people into ARM and macOS only to complete their vertical ecosystem.
The resources they save on supporting both x86 and ARM is minuscule in terms of labor and capital investment. Apple Silicon will never be the CPU king for its straight CPU to CPU performance metrics. They are banking on the add-on modules to be the heavy lifters. The FPGAs, DSPs, etc.
With AMD buying Xilinx they got the King of those very markets, globally in-house. AMD's own CPUs will be augmented and not resemble what they look like today moving forward.
AMD also has a license for ARM like Apple. If AMD wants it can jump to ARM only as well, and their processors have over 40 years of experience including the last ten years of experience with ARM. Xilinx has a ton of experience with ARM, even more than AMD.
https://www.xilinx.com/products/silicon-devices/soc.html
Apple will always be successful with whatever ISA it has a license to use. And it is the leader in embedded consumer electronic operating systems.
You're kidding yourselves if you think after 23 years since the NeXT Merger that Apple will take over the world on the Laptop/Desktop/Workstation spaces. Apple created Bootcamp to increase sales of Macs not to move people to macOS. The hardware sales were sluggish but having Bootcamp for the professional/business world gives people the quality of Mac hardware and the requirements of their company's Microsoft Windows mandate.
The fact Microsoft hasn't seen any measurable increase of sales for their own ARM products and Windows is a sign Apple doesn't expect to double or triple their market share with ARM.
Their bread n' butter continues to be the embedded space with iOS. They could have made this transition full force three years from now and had industry leading tech via AMD for their Mac lines while Silicon quietly matures, but they jumped the shark a bit on this one.
Desktop CPUs with ARM won't be less expensive to make. The cost differential is a higher profit margin as they are the one's making the CPUs thus they get to set the price targets, unlike dealing with Intel or AMD.
Ludicrous in the extreme.
I would like you to support that claim.
Apple is a consumer electronics hardware company with consumer oriented software and entertainment platforms.
I think the point I was making about web browsing between two Apple platforms went completely over your head.
It certainly isn't Huawei, nor Google, the search/advertising company, and it certainly isn't MS, the Windows/Enterprise/cloud/gaming company with limited hardware offerings.
Oh, and I stand by my statement that Mac OS web browsing will be faster given ASi over Intel, because Apple already did that in the existing A Series.
Feel free to post links that disprove what I have stated.
Apple’s current processors run cool, in phones, while beating a large number of desktop single-core Geekbench scores. Current performance for CPU silicon is no guarantee either way of what they’ll be able to accomplish in the future, especially compared to Intel/AMD with a different ISA. Anyone that knows what can and will happen with the perfect certainty you express should fully invest on such “knowledge” and become rich.