Well, yeh, those are two critical weaknesses in the M1 Mac line.
Nothing else matters if your computer cannot do the computing you need it to do.
Likewise, Apple has fallen behind the industry as it failed to produce a viable 2 in 1. Telling people to just buy a second computer is silly.
Yeh, the iPad definitely has the innate capability to be a very capable 2 in 1. But so far weaknesses in iPadOS are constraining it from reaching its full capabilities.
Come on Apple! You opened the door for the Mac to take full advantage of Apple's cohesive Ecosystem. But, you can't keep it handcuffed. You need to: 1) Support Microsoft in producing a viable ARM edition of Windows. To simply blame Microsoft after Apple moved away from it is silly.
2) Upgrade the iPad so it can compete with the 2 in 1's. The best way to do that might be to let it switch from iPadOS to MacOS as it goes from tablet mode to laptop mode. It can be done. Others have already done similar.
Steve knew that it was more important to give users what they needed rather than simply producing a slick product.
Apple needs to remember that.
Apple doesn’t need Microsoft, Google, Facebook, and now Intel to sell a great product, soon Qualcomm, and AMD will join that list in the rear view mirror.
And by the way the Surface is a placeholder like the Pixel line of smartphones a me too product going nowhere.
Helping Microsoft a what laugh.....
No, Apple doesn't need them -- but Apple customers do.
And, instead of walking away from Intel and thumbing their noses at Microsoft (very childish!) they need to help them build/upgrade a version of Windows that an M1 Mac can boot from Bootcamp. For an Apple customer, its a fall back, an insurance policy, in case they have to run something that won't run on MacOS.
How many users actually stilll rely upon Bootcamp, though? Things are really very different from fifteen years ago.
Yeah, if Apple customers need a "fall back" then they can buy another Windows machine. Apple certainly do not "need" to help Microsoft at all, and it's not at all in their interest to formulate a dependent relationship with one of their big rivals.
Well, yeh, those are two critical weaknesses in the M1 Mac line.
Nothing else matters if your computer cannot do the computing you need it to do.
Likewise, Apple has fallen behind the industry as it failed to produce a viable 2 in 1. Telling people to just buy a second computer is silly.
Yeh, the iPad definitely has the innate capability to be a very capable 2 in 1. But so far weaknesses in iPadOS are constraining it from reaching its full capabilities.
Come on Apple! You opened the door for the Mac to take full advantage of Apple's cohesive Ecosystem. But, you can't keep it handcuffed. You need to: 1) Support Microsoft in producing a viable ARM edition of Windows. To simply blame Microsoft after Apple moved away from it is silly.
2) Upgrade the iPad so it can compete with the 2 in 1's. The best way to do that might be to let it switch from iPadOS to MacOS as it goes from tablet mode to laptop mode. It can be done. Others have already done similar.
Steve knew that it was more important to give users what they needed rather than simply producing a slick product.
Apple needs to remember that.
Apple doesn’t need Microsoft, Google, Facebook, and now Intel to sell a great product, soon Qualcomm, and AMD will join that list in the rear view mirror.
And by the way the Surface is a placeholder like the Pixel line of smartphones a me too product going nowhere.
Helping Microsoft a what laugh.....
No, Apple doesn't need them -- but Apple customers do.
And, instead of walking away from Intel and thumbing their noses at Microsoft (very childish!) they need to help them build/upgrade a version of Windows that an M1 Mac can boot from Bootcamp. For an Apple customer, its a fall back, an insurance policy, in case they have to run something that won't run on MacOS.
How many users actually stilll rely upon Bootcamp, though? Things are really very different from fifteen years ago.
I remember waiting for OS X 10.5 (Leopard) to come out with Bootcamp as part of the standard build before buying my first Mac (a white MacBook) as I knew that there was some software I used that was only available on Windows. I found however that after 2/3 years I no longer needed to use Bootcamp, as either Mac versions of the software became available or I found alternatives.
Whilst I understand that there are some people that still need Bootcamp, I agree that things are very different nowadays.
Well, yeh, those are two critical weaknesses in the M1 Mac line.
Nothing else matters if your computer cannot do the computing you need it to do.
Likewise, Apple has fallen behind the industry as it failed to produce a viable 2 in 1. Telling people to just buy a second computer is silly.
Yeh, the iPad definitely has the innate capability to be a very capable 2 in 1. But so far weaknesses in iPadOS are constraining it from reaching its full capabilities.
Come on Apple! You opened the door for the Mac to take full advantage of Apple's cohesive Ecosystem. But, you can't keep it handcuffed. You need to: 1) Support Microsoft in producing a viable ARM edition of Windows. To simply blame Microsoft after Apple moved away from it is silly.
2) Upgrade the iPad so it can compete with the 2 in 1's. The best way to do that might be to let it switch from iPadOS to MacOS as it goes from tablet mode to laptop mode. It can be done. Others have already done similar.
Steve knew that it was more important to give users what they needed rather than simply producing a slick product.
Apple needs to remember that.
Apple doesn’t need Microsoft, Google, Facebook, and now Intel to sell a great product, soon Qualcomm, and AMD will join that list in the rear view mirror.
And by the way the Surface is a placeholder like the Pixel line of smartphones a me too product going nowhere.
Helping Microsoft a what laugh.....
No, Apple doesn't need them -- but Apple customers do.
And, instead of walking away from Intel and thumbing their noses at Microsoft (very childish!) they need to help them build/upgrade a version of Windows that an M1 Mac can boot from Bootcamp. For an Apple customer, its a fall back, an insurance policy, in case they have to run something that won't run on MacOS.
How many users actually stilll rely upon Bootcamp, though? Things are really very different from fifteen years ago.
Yeah, if Apple customers need a "fall back" then they can buy another Windows machine. Apple certainly do not "need" to help Microsoft at all, and it's not at all in their interest to formulate a dependent relationship with one of their big rivals.
They can also buy a Intel Ma or they can simply keep using their Intel Macs since Apple still hasn't replaced the Macs that would most likely want to dual boot into Windows with M-series chips. Hopefully there's an event next month for new Pro Macs, an iPad Pro, and AirTags, and if MS was wise they'll be reading the licensing of Windows for ARM-based PCs.
Well, yeh, those are two critical weaknesses in the M1 Mac line.
Nothing else matters if your computer cannot do the computing you need it to do.
Likewise, Apple has fallen behind the industry as it failed to produce a viable 2 in 1. Telling people to just buy a second computer is silly.
Yeh, the iPad definitely has the innate capability to be a very capable 2 in 1. But so far weaknesses in iPadOS are constraining it from reaching its full capabilities.
Come on Apple! You opened the door for the Mac to take full advantage of Apple's cohesive Ecosystem. But, you can't keep it handcuffed. You need to: 1) Support Microsoft in producing a viable ARM edition of Windows. To simply blame Microsoft after Apple moved away from it is silly.
2) Upgrade the iPad so it can compete with the 2 in 1's. The best way to do that might be to let it switch from iPadOS to MacOS as it goes from tablet mode to laptop mode. It can be done. Others have already done similar.
Steve knew that it was more important to give users what they needed rather than simply producing a slick product.
Apple needs to remember that.
Apple doesn’t need Microsoft, Google, Facebook, and now Intel to sell a great product, soon Qualcomm, and AMD will join that list in the rear view mirror.
And by the way the Surface is a placeholder like the Pixel line of smartphones a me too product going nowhere.
Helping Microsoft a what laugh.....
No, Apple doesn't need them -- but Apple customers do.
And, instead of walking away from Intel and thumbing their noses at Microsoft (very childish!) they need to help them build/upgrade a version of Windows that an M1 Mac can boot from Bootcamp. For an Apple customer, its a fall back, an insurance policy, in case they have to run something that won't run on MacOS.
It's mind-blowing how you still don't understand that it's MS responsibly to want to get Windows to be licensable on ARM.
You're like the people that file in a Texan district lawsuit that would claims Apple treated MS unfairly by switching their processor architecture without ever considering that MS has complete control over how it licenses their OSes.
It has nothing to do with licensing and everything about Apple providing their customers with the best product available. It's Apple who left Intel and Windows, not the other way around. And, it's Apple trying to sell their computers. It's in both their interest and the interest of their customers.
Well, yeh, those are two critical weaknesses in the M1 Mac line.
Nothing else matters if your computer cannot do the computing you need it to do.
Likewise, Apple has fallen behind the industry as it failed to produce a viable 2 in 1. Telling people to just buy a second computer is silly.
Yeh, the iPad definitely has the innate capability to be a very capable 2 in 1. But so far weaknesses in iPadOS are constraining it from reaching its full capabilities.
Come on Apple! You opened the door for the Mac to take full advantage of Apple's cohesive Ecosystem. But, you can't keep it handcuffed. You need to: 1) Support Microsoft in producing a viable ARM edition of Windows. To simply blame Microsoft after Apple moved away from it is silly.
2) Upgrade the iPad so it can compete with the 2 in 1's. The best way to do that might be to let it switch from iPadOS to MacOS as it goes from tablet mode to laptop mode. It can be done. Others have already done similar.
Steve knew that it was more important to give users what they needed rather than simply producing a slick product.
Apple needs to remember that.
Apple doesn’t need Microsoft, Google, Facebook, and now Intel to sell a great product, soon Qualcomm, and AMD will join that list in the rear view mirror.
And by the way the Surface is a placeholder like the Pixel line of smartphones a me too product going nowhere.
Helping Microsoft a what laugh.....
No, Apple doesn't need them -- but Apple customers do.
And, instead of walking away from Intel and thumbing their noses at Microsoft (very childish!) they need to help them build/upgrade a version of Windows that an M1 Mac can boot from Bootcamp. For an Apple customer, its a fall back, an insurance policy, in case they have to run something that won't run on MacOS.
How many users actually stilll rely upon Bootcamp, though? Things are really very different from fifteen years ago.
My grandson for one: without Bootcamp we would have had to buy him a Lenovo so he could do his school work on Cyberschool.
I doubt that he's the only one. And, unless a person knew everything they would need for the next 5 years, why take a chance that MacOS would be able to run every application they will need for the life of the machine. MacOS simply doesn't have that great of a reputation in that regard: for many applications, IF it would run then it was a second rate version that seldom got updated.
Well, yeh, those are two critical weaknesses in the M1 Mac line.
Nothing else matters if your computer cannot do the computing you need it to do.
Likewise, Apple has fallen behind the industry as it failed to produce a viable 2 in 1. Telling people to just buy a second computer is silly.
Yeh, the iPad definitely has the innate capability to be a very capable 2 in 1. But so far weaknesses in iPadOS are constraining it from reaching its full capabilities.
Come on Apple! You opened the door for the Mac to take full advantage of Apple's cohesive Ecosystem. But, you can't keep it handcuffed. You need to: 1) Support Microsoft in producing a viable ARM edition of Windows. To simply blame Microsoft after Apple moved away from it is silly.
2) Upgrade the iPad so it can compete with the 2 in 1's. The best way to do that might be to let it switch from iPadOS to MacOS as it goes from tablet mode to laptop mode. It can be done. Others have already done similar.
Steve knew that it was more important to give users what they needed rather than simply producing a slick product.
Apple needs to remember that.
Apple doesn’t need Microsoft, Google, Facebook, and now Intel to sell a great product, soon Qualcomm, and AMD will join that list in the rear view mirror.
And by the way the Surface is a placeholder like the Pixel line of smartphones a me too product going nowhere.
Helping Microsoft a what laugh.....
No, Apple doesn't need them -- but Apple customers do.
And, instead of walking away from Intel and thumbing their noses at Microsoft (very childish!) they need to help them build/upgrade a version of Windows that an M1 Mac can boot from Bootcamp. For an Apple customer, its a fall back, an insurance policy, in case they have to run something that won't run on MacOS.
It's mind-blowing how you still don't understand that it's MS responsibly to want to get Windows to be licensable on ARM.
You're like the people that file in a Texan district lawsuit that would claims Apple treated MS unfairly by switching their processor architecture without ever considering that MS has complete control over how it licenses their OSes.
It has nothing to do with licensing and everything about Apple providing their customers with the best product available. It's Apple who left Intel and Windows, not the other way around. And, it's Apple trying to sell their computers. It's in both their interest and the interest of their customers.
You can’t be that dense. Apple didn’t LEAVE Windows. Apple doesn’t own Windows. To claim that Apple is in charge of getting MS to create an ARM license of Windows is beyond stupid.
Well, yeh, those are two critical weaknesses in the M1 Mac line.
Nothing else matters if your computer cannot do the computing you need it to do.
Likewise, Apple has fallen behind the industry as it failed to produce a viable 2 in 1. Telling people to just buy a second computer is silly.
Yeh, the iPad definitely has the innate capability to be a very capable 2 in 1. But so far weaknesses in iPadOS are constraining it from reaching its full capabilities.
Come on Apple! You opened the door for the Mac to take full advantage of Apple's cohesive Ecosystem. But, you can't keep it handcuffed. You need to: 1) Support Microsoft in producing a viable ARM edition of Windows. To simply blame Microsoft after Apple moved away from it is silly.
2) Upgrade the iPad so it can compete with the 2 in 1's. The best way to do that might be to let it switch from iPadOS to MacOS as it goes from tablet mode to laptop mode. It can be done. Others have already done similar.
Steve knew that it was more important to give users what they needed rather than simply producing a slick product.
Apple needs to remember that.
Apple doesn’t need Microsoft, Google, Facebook, and now Intel to sell a great product, soon Qualcomm, and AMD will join that list in the rear view mirror.
And by the way the Surface is a placeholder like the Pixel line of smartphones a me too product going nowhere.
Helping Microsoft a what laugh.....
No, Apple doesn't need them -- but Apple customers do.
And, instead of walking away from Intel and thumbing their noses at Microsoft (very childish!) they need to help them build/upgrade a version of Windows that an M1 Mac can boot from Bootcamp. For an Apple customer, its a fall back, an insurance policy, in case they have to run something that won't run on MacOS.
It's mind-blowing how you still don't understand that it's MS responsibly to want to get Windows to be licensable on ARM.
You're like the people that file in a Texan district lawsuit that would claims Apple treated MS unfairly by switching their processor architecture without ever considering that MS has complete control over how it licenses their OSes.
Microsoft so far doesn’t have the will, the IT world has them firmly in the past.
Well, yeh, those are two critical weaknesses in the M1 Mac line.
Nothing else matters if your computer cannot do the computing you need it to do.
Likewise, Apple has fallen behind the industry as it failed to produce a viable 2 in 1. Telling people to just buy a second computer is silly.
Yeh, the iPad definitely has the innate capability to be a very capable 2 in 1. But so far weaknesses in iPadOS are constraining it from reaching its full capabilities.
Come on Apple! You opened the door for the Mac to take full advantage of Apple's cohesive Ecosystem. But, you can't keep it handcuffed. You need to: 1) Support Microsoft in producing a viable ARM edition of Windows. To simply blame Microsoft after Apple moved away from it is silly.
2) Upgrade the iPad so it can compete with the 2 in 1's. The best way to do that might be to let it switch from iPadOS to MacOS as it goes from tablet mode to laptop mode. It can be done. Others have already done similar.
Steve knew that it was more important to give users what they needed rather than simply producing a slick product.
Apple needs to remember that.
Apple doesn’t need Microsoft, Google, Facebook, and now Intel to sell a great product, soon Qualcomm, and AMD will join that list in the rear view mirror.
And by the way the Surface is a placeholder like the Pixel line of smartphones a me too product going nowhere.
Helping Microsoft a what laugh.....
No, Apple doesn't need them -- but Apple customers do.
And, instead of walking away from Intel and thumbing their noses at Microsoft (very childish!) they need to help them build/upgrade a version of Windows that an M1 Mac can boot from Bootcamp. For an Apple customer, its a fall back, an insurance policy, in case they have to run something that won't run on MacOS.
It's mind-blowing how you still don't understand that it's MS responsibly to want to get Windows to be licensable on ARM.
You're like the people that file in a Texan district lawsuit that would claims Apple treated MS unfairly by switching their processor architecture without ever considering that MS has complete control over how it licenses their OSes.
It has nothing to do with licensing and everything about Apple providing their customers with the best product available. It's Apple who left Intel and Windows, not the other way around. And, it's Apple trying to sell their computers. It's in both their interest and the interest of their customers.
You can’t be that dense. Apple didn’t LEAVE Windows. Apple doesn’t own Windows. To claim that Apple is in charge of getting MS to create an ARM license of Windows is beyond stupid.
1) It has nothing to do with licensing/
2) Yes, Apple left both Intel and the Windows that run on it. Instead of inviting Microsoft to provide a copy that would run on their new hardware and offering to assist, they very haughtily stated "it's their problem!". That was childish.
Well, yeh, those are two critical weaknesses in the M1 Mac line.
Nothing else matters if your computer cannot do the computing you need it to do.
Likewise, Apple has fallen behind the industry as it failed to produce a viable 2 in 1. Telling people to just buy a second computer is silly.
Yeh, the iPad definitely has the innate capability to be a very capable 2 in 1. But so far weaknesses in iPadOS are constraining it from reaching its full capabilities.
Come on Apple! You opened the door for the Mac to take full advantage of Apple's cohesive Ecosystem. But, you can't keep it handcuffed. You need to: 1) Support Microsoft in producing a viable ARM edition of Windows. To simply blame Microsoft after Apple moved away from it is silly.
2) Upgrade the iPad so it can compete with the 2 in 1's. The best way to do that might be to let it switch from iPadOS to MacOS as it goes from tablet mode to laptop mode. It can be done. Others have already done similar.
Steve knew that it was more important to give users what they needed rather than simply producing a slick product.
Apple needs to remember that.
Apple doesn’t need Microsoft, Google, Facebook, and now Intel to sell a great product, soon Qualcomm, and AMD will join that list in the rear view mirror.
And by the way the Surface is a placeholder like the Pixel line of smartphones a me too product going nowhere.
Helping Microsoft a what laugh.....
No, Apple doesn't need them -- but Apple customers do.
And, instead of walking away from Intel and thumbing their noses at Microsoft (very childish!) they need to help them build/upgrade a version of Windows that an M1 Mac can boot from Bootcamp. For an Apple customer, its a fall back, an insurance policy, in case they have to run something that won't run on MacOS.
It's mind-blowing how you still don't understand that it's MS responsibly to want to get Windows to be licensable on ARM.
You're like the people that file in a Texan district lawsuit that would claims Apple treated MS unfairly by switching their processor architecture without ever considering that MS has complete control over how it licenses their OSes.
Microsoft so far doesn’t have the will, the IT world has them firmly in the past.
2) Yes, Apple left both Intel and the Windows that run on it. Instead of inviting Microsoft to provide a copy that would run on their new hardware and offering to assist, they very haughtily stated "it's their problem!". That was childish.
Inviting? What is this a high school house party? Apple don't need to "invite" Microsoft to release Windows For ARM, Microsoft just need to release it; that's Microsoft's principal business model, selling software. Apple didn't say "it's their problem" either, they said "it's up to them (Microsoft)", which it entirely 100% is. Apple have given every indication that they are ready, willing and able to assist, but they don't control Microsoft's decision making.
Microsoft own Windows. Microsoft develop Windows. Microsoft sells Windows. Microsoft choose which platforms they develop and sell Windows for.
For their own reasons, they have decided they don't want to sell Windows For ARM as a standalone OS yet. That's got nothing to do with Apple and everything to do with Microsoft.
This is a bizarre angle George. Are Apple also responsible for every developer that hasn't ported to Apple Silicon yet?
Well, yeh, those are two critical weaknesses in the M1 Mac line.
Nothing else matters if your computer cannot do the computing you need it to do.
Likewise, Apple has fallen behind the industry as it failed to produce a viable 2 in 1. Telling people to just buy a second computer is silly.
Yeh, the iPad definitely has the innate capability to be a very capable 2 in 1. But so far weaknesses in iPadOS are constraining it from reaching its full capabilities.
Come on Apple! You opened the door for the Mac to take full advantage of Apple's cohesive Ecosystem. But, you can't keep it handcuffed. You need to: 1) Support Microsoft in producing a viable ARM edition of Windows. To simply blame Microsoft after Apple moved away from it is silly.
2) Upgrade the iPad so it can compete with the 2 in 1's. The best way to do that might be to let it switch from iPadOS to MacOS as it goes from tablet mode to laptop mode. It can be done. Others have already done similar.
Steve knew that it was more important to give users what they needed rather than simply producing a slick product.
Apple needs to remember that.
Apple doesn’t need Microsoft, Google, Facebook, and now Intel to sell a great product, soon Qualcomm, and AMD will join that list in the rear view mirror.
And by the way the Surface is a placeholder like the Pixel line of smartphones a me too product going nowhere.
Helping Microsoft a what laugh.....
No, Apple doesn't need them -- but Apple customers do.
And, instead of walking away from Intel and thumbing their noses at Microsoft (very childish!) they need to help them build/upgrade a version of Windows that an M1 Mac can boot from Bootcamp. For an Apple customer, its a fall back, an insurance policy, in case they have to run something that won't run on MacOS.
It's mind-blowing how you still don't understand that it's MS responsibly to want to get Windows to be licensable on ARM.
You're like the people that file in a Texan district lawsuit that would claims Apple treated MS unfairly by switching their processor architecture without ever considering that MS has complete control over how it licenses their OSes.
It has nothing to do with licensing and everything about Apple providing their customers with the best product available. It's Apple who left Intel and Windows, not the other way around. And, it's Apple trying to sell their computers. It's in both their interest and the interest of their customers.
You can’t be that dense. Apple didn’t LEAVE Windows. Apple doesn’t own Windows. To claim that Apple is in charge of getting MS to create an ARM license of Windows is beyond stupid.
1) It has nothing to do with licensing/
2) Yes, Apple left both Intel and the Windows that run on it. Instead of inviting Microsoft to provide a copy that would run on their new hardware and offering to assist, they very haughtily stated "it's their problem!". That was childish.
Errr... are you asking for Apple to develop Microsoft’s software for them?
Are you aware that Apple didn’t release an initial beta of Bootcamp until four months after introduction of the first Intel machines, and didn’t officially support booting Windows until the first non-beta release TWENTY MONTHS after releasing the first Intel Macs?
That was obviously “childish”, I suppose.
I mean, apart from the world being a different place fifteen years ago: Microsoft is a grown-up company and fully capable of developing for themselves.
2) Yes, Apple left both Intel and the Windows that run on it. Instead of inviting Microsoft to provide a copy that would run on their new hardware and offering to assist, they very haughtily stated "it's their problem!". That was childish.
Inviting? What is this a high school house party? Apple don't need to "invite" Microsoft to release Windows For ARM, Microsoft just need to release it; that's Microsoft's principal business model, selling software. Apple didn't say "it's their problem" either, they said "it's up to them (Microsoft)", which it entirely 100% is. Apple have given every indication that they are ready, willing and able to assist, but they don't control Microsoft's decision making.
Microsoft own Windows. Microsoft develop Windows. Microsoft sells Windows. Microsoft choose which platforms they develop and sell Windows for.
For their own reasons, they have decided they don't want to sell Windows For ARM as a standalone OS yet. That's got nothing to do with Apple and everything to do with Microsoft.
This is a bizarre angle George. Are Apple also responsible for every developer that hasn't ported to Apple Silicon yet?
Bizarre? Hardly.... It (would have been) good business on Apple's part to assist a business partner in tailoring their product to run on Apple's equipment.
But, instead they chose the haughty, childlike route and essentially taunted Microsoft with (however they phrased it) "it's your problem".
Why was it childish? Apple had nothing to gain from snubbing a valued business partner. Good business people don't do that stuff.
But, the losers are Mac users who may (or may in the future) need to run Windows.
But also Apple. My friend was going to by a MacBook --- till she found they no longer support Windows.
Why hasn't Microsoft fully developed an ARM based Windows? Probably because there has not been a lot of demand for one. They may change their mind -- no thanks to Apple.
Well, yeh, those are two critical weaknesses in the M1 Mac line.
Nothing else matters if your computer cannot do the computing you need it to do.
Likewise, Apple has fallen behind the industry as it failed to produce a viable 2 in 1. Telling people to just buy a second computer is silly.
Yeh, the iPad definitely has the innate capability to be a very capable 2 in 1. But so far weaknesses in iPadOS are constraining it from reaching its full capabilities.
Come on Apple! You opened the door for the Mac to take full advantage of Apple's cohesive Ecosystem. But, you can't keep it handcuffed. You need to: 1) Support Microsoft in producing a viable ARM edition of Windows. To simply blame Microsoft after Apple moved away from it is silly.
2) Upgrade the iPad so it can compete with the 2 in 1's. The best way to do that might be to let it switch from iPadOS to MacOS as it goes from tablet mode to laptop mode. It can be done. Others have already done similar.
Steve knew that it was more important to give users what they needed rather than simply producing a slick product.
Apple needs to remember that.
Apple doesn’t need Microsoft, Google, Facebook, and now Intel to sell a great product, soon Qualcomm, and AMD will join that list in the rear view mirror.
And by the way the Surface is a placeholder like the Pixel line of smartphones a me too product going nowhere.
Helping Microsoft a what laugh.....
No, Apple doesn't need them -- but Apple customers do.
And, instead of walking away from Intel and thumbing their noses at Microsoft (very childish!) they need to help them build/upgrade a version of Windows that an M1 Mac can boot from Bootcamp. For an Apple customer, its a fall back, an insurance policy, in case they have to run something that won't run on MacOS.
Still trying to push that old nonsense I see.
As Federighi pointed out, the ball is in Microsoft’s court. It is up to them to fix the licensing around a Windows ARM. It is up to them to put the effort in to make it a viable target for developers. It looks like Microsoft is the one unwilling to put in the effort and resources for something that around 2% of Apple customers actually use. Of that 2%, I wonder how many could actually find alternatives if they made the effort, or who’re running mostly Windows apps anyway.
2) Yes, Apple left both Intel and the Windows that run on it. Instead of inviting Microsoft to provide a copy that would run on their new hardware and offering to assist, they very haughtily stated "it's their problem!". That was childish.
Inviting? What is this a high school house party? Apple don't need to "invite" Microsoft to release Windows For ARM, Microsoft just need to release it; that's Microsoft's principal business model, selling software. Apple didn't say "it's their problem" either, they said "it's up to them (Microsoft)", which it entirely 100% is. Apple have given every indication that they are ready, willing and able to assist, but they don't control Microsoft's decision making.
Microsoft own Windows. Microsoft develop Windows. Microsoft sells Windows. Microsoft choose which platforms they develop and sell Windows for.
For their own reasons, they have decided they don't want to sell Windows For ARM as a standalone OS yet. That's got nothing to do with Apple and everything to do with Microsoft.
This is a bizarre angle George. Are Apple also responsible for every developer that hasn't ported to Apple Silicon yet?
Bizarre? Hardly.... It (would have been) good business on Apple's part to assist a business partner in tailoring their product to run on Apple's equipment.
But, instead they chose the haughty, childlike route and essentially taunted Microsoft with (however they phrased it) "it's your problem".
Why was it childish? Apple had nothing to gain from snubbing a valued business partner. Good business people don't do that stuff.
But, the losers are Mac users who may (or may in the future) need to run Windows.
But also Apple. My friend was going to by a MacBook --- till she found they no longer support Windows.
Why hasn't Microsoft fully developed an ARM based Windows? Probably because there has not been a lot of demand for one. They may change their mind -- no thanks to Apple.
You keep calling Apple childish for saying it's up to Microsoft to release Windows for ARM, but I see absolutely no evidence for that. What they said was a simple statement of fact in answer to a question about whether Windows would run on Apple Silicon. It is literally, unequivocally, and undeniably "up to Microsoft". The fact that you keep misrepresenting what they said as "it's your problem" says way more about you that about Apple. Good business people don't make up grievances.
The actual quote, without George's misreading and spin:
Speaking on software, Federighi was asked if it was possible to run an ARM version of Windows in emulation. He said “that is really up to Microsoft.”
“We have the core technologies for them to do that, to run their ARM version of Windows, which in turn of course supports x86 user mode applications,” said Federighi. “But that’s a decision Microsoft has to make, to bring to license that technology for users to run on these Macs.” Federighi concludes, “But the Macs are certainly very capable of it.”
i.e. Apple sell the hardware and it is capable. If Microsoft want to sell the software that's their decision.
You've made a big list of assumptions and guesses, but nowhere have you considered the possibility that Apple are assisting Microsoft, but Microsoft just aren't interested or haven't got the product ready yet. Either do the sensible thing and don't blame anyone at all, or (if you must) at least blame the company that's making the pertinent decisions.
Well, yeh, those are two critical weaknesses in the M1 Mac line.
Nothing else matters if your computer cannot do the computing you need it to do.
Likewise, Apple has fallen behind the industry as it failed to produce a viable 2 in 1. Telling people to just buy a second computer is silly.
Yeh, the iPad definitely has the innate capability to be a very capable 2 in 1. But so far weaknesses in iPadOS are constraining it from reaching its full capabilities.
Come on Apple! You opened the door for the Mac to take full advantage of Apple's cohesive Ecosystem. But, you can't keep it handcuffed. You need to: 1) Support Microsoft in producing a viable ARM edition of Windows. To simply blame Microsoft after Apple moved away from it is silly.
2) Upgrade the iPad so it can compete with the 2 in 1's. The best way to do that might be to let it switch from iPadOS to MacOS as it goes from tablet mode to laptop mode. It can be done. Others have already done similar.
Steve knew that it was more important to give users what they needed rather than simply producing a slick product.
Apple needs to remember that.
Apple doesn’t need Microsoft, Google, Facebook, and now Intel to sell a great product, soon Qualcomm, and AMD will join that list in the rear view mirror.
And by the way the Surface is a placeholder like the Pixel line of smartphones a me too product going nowhere.
Helping Microsoft a what laugh.....
No, Apple doesn't need them -- but Apple customers do.
And, instead of walking away from Intel and thumbing their noses at Microsoft (very childish!) they need to help them build/upgrade a version of Windows that an M1 Mac can boot from Bootcamp. For an Apple customer, its a fall back, an insurance policy, in case they have to run something that won't run on MacOS.
Still trying to push that old nonsense I see.
As Federighi pointed out, the ball is in Microsoft’s court. It is up to them to fix the licensing around a Windows ARM. It is up to them to put the effort in to make it a viable target for developers. It looks like Microsoft is the one unwilling to put in the effort and resources for something that around 2% of Apple customers actually use. Of that 2%, I wonder how many could actually find alternatives if they made the effort, or who’re running mostly Windows apps anyway.
Again, it's not a license issue. Does Facebook need a license to run on an ARM processor? Does any software?
And Apple simply walking away from a valued business partner with their little taunt was childish, unprofessional and showed poor business skill.
And, it doesn't matter what percent of users actually use it. Having the ability to run the most common OS, is an insurance policy in case they need to run something that will only run on that platform.
2) Yes, Apple left both Intel and the Windows that run on it. Instead of inviting Microsoft to provide a copy that would run on their new hardware and offering to assist, they very haughtily stated "it's their problem!". That was childish.
Inviting? What is this a high school house party? Apple don't need to "invite" Microsoft to release Windows For ARM, Microsoft just need to release it; that's Microsoft's principal business model, selling software. Apple didn't say "it's their problem" either, they said "it's up to them (Microsoft)", which it entirely 100% is. Apple have given every indication that they are ready, willing and able to assist, but they don't control Microsoft's decision making.
Microsoft own Windows. Microsoft develop Windows. Microsoft sells Windows. Microsoft choose which platforms they develop and sell Windows for.
For their own reasons, they have decided they don't want to sell Windows For ARM as a standalone OS yet. That's got nothing to do with Apple and everything to do with Microsoft.
This is a bizarre angle George. Are Apple also responsible for every developer that hasn't ported to Apple Silicon yet?
Bizarre? Hardly.... It (would have been) good business on Apple's part to assist a business partner in tailoring their product to run on Apple's equipment.
But, instead they chose the haughty, childlike route and essentially taunted Microsoft with (however they phrased it) "it's your problem".
Why was it childish? Apple had nothing to gain from snubbing a valued business partner. Good business people don't do that stuff.
But, the losers are Mac users who may (or may in the future) need to run Windows.
But also Apple. My friend was going to by a MacBook --- till she found they no longer support Windows.
Why hasn't Microsoft fully developed an ARM based Windows? Probably because there has not been a lot of demand for one. They may change their mind -- no thanks to Apple.
You keep calling Apple childish for saying it's up to Microsoft to release Windows for ARM, but I see absolutely no evidence for that. What they said was a simple statement of fact in answer to a question about whether Windows would run on Apple Silicon. It is literally, unqequivocally, and undeniably "up to Microsoft". The fact that you keep misrepresenting what they said as "it's your poroblem" says way more about you that about Apple. Good business people don't make up grievances.
The actual quote, without George's misreading and spin:
Speaking on software, Federighi was asked if it was possible to run an ARM version of Windows in emulation. He said “that is really up to Microsoft.”
“We have the core technologies for them to do that, to run their ARM version of Windows, which in turn of course supports x86 user mode applications,” said Federighi. “But that’s a decision Microsoft has to make, to bring to license that technology for users to run on these Macs.” Federighi concludes, “But the Macs are certainly very capable of it.”
i.e. Apple sell the hardware and it is capoable. If Microsoft want to sell the software that's their decision.
You've made a big list of assumptions and guesses, but nowhere have you considered the possibility that Apple are assisting Microsoft, but Microsoft just aren't interested or haven't got the product ready yet. Either do the sensible thing and don't blame anyone at all, or (if you must) at least blame the company that's making the pertinent decisions.
You don't take that kind of childish, haughty attitude with valued business partners.
True, Microsoft has to adapt their OS to run on Apple's hardware.
It is equally true that Apple could have and should have partnered with them to cooperate and assist them with that transition.
Both companies would have benefited. That's how business partnerships work.
Apple chose the childish, haughty way....
It is you who are assuming in the face of evidence to the contrary that Apple offered to cooperate and assist and that Microsoft refused.
Well, yeh, those are two critical weaknesses in the M1 Mac line.
Nothing else matters if your computer cannot do the computing you need it to do.
Likewise, Apple has fallen behind the industry as it failed to produce a viable 2 in 1. Telling people to just buy a second computer is silly.
Yeh, the iPad definitely has the innate capability to be a very capable 2 in 1. But so far weaknesses in iPadOS are constraining it from reaching its full capabilities.
Come on Apple! You opened the door for the Mac to take full advantage of Apple's cohesive Ecosystem. But, you can't keep it handcuffed. You need to: 1) Support Microsoft in producing a viable ARM edition of Windows. To simply blame Microsoft after Apple moved away from it is silly.
2) Upgrade the iPad so it can compete with the 2 in 1's. The best way to do that might be to let it switch from iPadOS to MacOS as it goes from tablet mode to laptop mode. It can be done. Others have already done similar.
Steve knew that it was more important to give users what they needed rather than simply producing a slick product.
Apple needs to remember that.
Apple doesn’t need Microsoft, Google, Facebook, and now Intel to sell a great product, soon Qualcomm, and AMD will join that list in the rear view mirror.
And by the way the Surface is a placeholder like the Pixel line of smartphones a me too product going nowhere.
Helping Microsoft a what laugh.....
No, Apple doesn't need them -- but Apple customers do.
And, instead of walking away from Intel and thumbing their noses at Microsoft (very childish!) they need to help them build/upgrade a version of Windows that an M1 Mac can boot from Bootcamp. For an Apple customer, its a fall back, an insurance policy, in case they have to run something that won't run on MacOS.
Still trying to push that old nonsense I see.
As Federighi pointed out, the ball is in Microsoft’s court. It is up to them to fix the licensing around a Windows ARM. It is up to them to put the effort in to make it a viable target for developers. It looks like Microsoft is the one unwilling to put in the effort and resources for something that around 2% of Apple customers actually use. Of that 2%, I wonder how many could actually find alternatives if they made the effort, or who’re running mostly Windows apps anyway.
Again, it's not a license issue. Does Facebook need a license to run on an ARM processor? Does any software?
And Apple simply walking away from a valued business partner with their little taunt was childish, unprofessional and showed poor business skill.
And, it doesn't matter what percent of users actually use it. Having the ability to run the most common OS, is an insurance policy in case they need to run something that will only run on that platform.
I would say: Grow up Craig!
It's a license issue because Microsoft are not selling licenses for Windows for ARM! They already have the bulk of the product, and they're shipping it embedded on Surface Go machines. The amount of work to get Windows for ARM working for Apple Silicon and available as a download and purchase is likely to be trivial for Microsoft but they aren't doing it. And you're blaming Apple for some baffling reason.
2) Yes, Apple left both Intel and the Windows that run on it. Instead of inviting Microsoft to provide a copy that would run on their new hardware and offering to assist, they very haughtily stated "it's their problem!". That was childish.
Inviting? What is this a high school house party? Apple don't need to "invite" Microsoft to release Windows For ARM, Microsoft just need to release it; that's Microsoft's principal business model, selling software. Apple didn't say "it's their problem" either, they said "it's up to them (Microsoft)", which it entirely 100% is. Apple have given every indication that they are ready, willing and able to assist, but they don't control Microsoft's decision making.
Microsoft own Windows. Microsoft develop Windows. Microsoft sells Windows. Microsoft choose which platforms they develop and sell Windows for.
For their own reasons, they have decided they don't want to sell Windows For ARM as a standalone OS yet. That's got nothing to do with Apple and everything to do with Microsoft.
This is a bizarre angle George. Are Apple also responsible for every developer that hasn't ported to Apple Silicon yet?
Bizarre? Hardly.... It (would have been) good business on Apple's part to assist a business partner in tailoring their product to run on Apple's equipment.
But, instead they chose the haughty, childlike route and essentially taunted Microsoft with (however they phrased it) "it's your problem".
Why was it childish? Apple had nothing to gain from snubbing a valued business partner. Good business people don't do that stuff.
But, the losers are Mac users who may (or may in the future) need to run Windows.
But also Apple. My friend was going to by a MacBook --- till she found they no longer support Windows.
Why hasn't Microsoft fully developed an ARM based Windows? Probably because there has not been a lot of demand for one. They may change their mind -- no thanks to Apple.
You keep calling Apple childish for saying it's up to Microsoft to release Windows for ARM, but I see absolutely no evidence for that. What they said was a simple statement of fact in answer to a question about whether Windows would run on Apple Silicon. It is literally, unqequivocally, and undeniably "up to Microsoft". The fact that you keep misrepresenting what they said as "it's your poroblem" says way more about you that about Apple. Good business people don't make up grievances.
The actual quote, without George's misreading and spin:
Speaking on software, Federighi was asked if it was possible to run an ARM version of Windows in emulation. He said “that is really up to Microsoft.”
“We have the core technologies for them to do that, to run their ARM version of Windows, which in turn of course supports x86 user mode applications,” said Federighi. “But that’s a decision Microsoft has to make, to bring to license that technology for users to run on these Macs.” Federighi concludes, “But the Macs are certainly very capable of it.”
i.e. Apple sell the hardware and it is capoable. If Microsoft want to sell the software that's their decision.
You've made a big list of assumptions and guesses, but nowhere have you considered the possibility that Apple are assisting Microsoft, but Microsoft just aren't interested or haven't got the product ready yet. Either do the sensible thing and don't blame anyone at all, or (if you must) at least blame the company that's making the pertinent decisions.
You don't take that kind of childish, haughty attitude with valued business partners.
True, Microsoft has to adapt their OS to run on Apple's hardware.
It is equally true that Apple could have and should have partnered with them to cooperate and assist them with that transition.
Both companies would have benefited. That's how business partnerships work.
Apple chose the childish, haughty way....
It is you who are assuming in the face of evidence to the contrary that Apple offered to cooperate and assist and that Microsoft refused.
I didn't assume anything. I said the sensible thing was to not blame anyone at all. Another utterly disingenuous shitstorm from you George. Take a nap.
Well, yeh, those are two critical weaknesses in the M1 Mac line.
Nothing else matters if your computer cannot do the computing you need it to do.
Likewise, Apple has fallen behind the industry as it failed to produce a viable 2 in 1. Telling people to just buy a second computer is silly.
Yeh, the iPad definitely has the innate capability to be a very capable 2 in 1. But so far weaknesses in iPadOS are constraining it from reaching its full capabilities.
Come on Apple! You opened the door for the Mac to take full advantage of Apple's cohesive Ecosystem. But, you can't keep it handcuffed. You need to: 1) Support Microsoft in producing a viable ARM edition of Windows. To simply blame Microsoft after Apple moved away from it is silly.
2) Upgrade the iPad so it can compete with the 2 in 1's. The best way to do that might be to let it switch from iPadOS to MacOS as it goes from tablet mode to laptop mode. It can be done. Others have already done similar.
Steve knew that it was more important to give users what they needed rather than simply producing a slick product.
Apple needs to remember that.
Apple doesn’t need Microsoft, Google, Facebook, and now Intel to sell a great product, soon Qualcomm, and AMD will join that list in the rear view mirror.
And by the way the Surface is a placeholder like the Pixel line of smartphones a me too product going nowhere.
Helping Microsoft a what laugh.....
No, Apple doesn't need them -- but Apple customers do.
And, instead of walking away from Intel and thumbing their noses at Microsoft (very childish!) they need to help them build/upgrade a version of Windows that an M1 Mac can boot from Bootcamp. For an Apple customer, its a fall back, an insurance policy, in case they have to run something that won't run on MacOS.
Still trying to push that old nonsense I see.
As Federighi pointed out, the ball is in Microsoft’s court. It is up to them to fix the licensing around a Windows ARM. It is up to them to put the effort in to make it a viable target for developers. It looks like Microsoft is the one unwilling to put in the effort and resources for something that around 2% of Apple customers actually use. Of that 2%, I wonder how many could actually find alternatives if they made the effort, or who’re running mostly Windows apps anyway.
Again, it's not a license issue. Does Facebook need a license to run on an ARM processor? Does any software?
And Apple simply walking away from a valued business partner with their little taunt was childish, unprofessional and showed poor business skill.
And, it doesn't matter what percent of users actually use it. Having the ability to run the most common OS, is an insurance policy in case they need to run something that will only run on that platform.
I would say: Grow up Craig!
Some guys already have ARM Windows running on M1 Macs. It is not a technical issue.
If Microsoft wants Windows to run on M1 Macs, they have to MAKE IT AVAILABLE.
As yet, it is not, as it comes ONLY with Microsoft's own ARM-based computers.
Apple can't well offer support for something that isn't actually available legally, can they.
Well, yeh, those are two critical weaknesses in the M1 Mac line.
Nothing else matters if your computer cannot do the computing you need it to do.
Likewise, Apple has fallen behind the industry as it failed to produce a viable 2 in 1. Telling people to just buy a second computer is silly.
Yeh, the iPad definitely has the innate capability to be a very capable 2 in 1. But so far weaknesses in iPadOS are constraining it from reaching its full capabilities.
Come on Apple! You opened the door for the Mac to take full advantage of Apple's cohesive Ecosystem. But, you can't keep it handcuffed. You need to: 1) Support Microsoft in producing a viable ARM edition of Windows. To simply blame Microsoft after Apple moved away from it is silly.
2) Upgrade the iPad so it can compete with the 2 in 1's. The best way to do that might be to let it switch from iPadOS to MacOS as it goes from tablet mode to laptop mode. It can be done. Others have already done similar.
Steve knew that it was more important to give users what they needed rather than simply producing a slick product.
Apple needs to remember that.
Apple doesn’t need Microsoft, Google, Facebook, and now Intel to sell a great product, soon Qualcomm, and AMD will join that list in the rear view mirror.
And by the way the Surface is a placeholder like the Pixel line of smartphones a me too product going nowhere.
Helping Microsoft a what laugh.....
No, Apple doesn't need them -- but Apple customers do.
And, instead of walking away from Intel and thumbing their noses at Microsoft (very childish!) they need to help them build/upgrade a version of Windows that an M1 Mac can boot from Bootcamp. For an Apple customer, its a fall back, an insurance policy, in case they have to run something that won't run on MacOS.
Still trying to push that old nonsense I see.
As Federighi pointed out, the ball is in Microsoft’s court. It is up to them to fix the licensing around a Windows ARM. It is up to them to put the effort in to make it a viable target for developers. It looks like Microsoft is the one unwilling to put in the effort and resources for something that around 2% of Apple customers actually use. Of that 2%, I wonder how many could actually find alternatives if they made the effort, or who’re running mostly Windows apps anyway.
Again, it's not a license issue. Does Facebook need a license to run on an ARM processor? Does any software?
And Apple simply walking away from a valued business partner with their little taunt was childish, unprofessional and showed poor business skill.
And, it doesn't matter what percent of users actually use it. Having the ability to run the most common OS, is an insurance policy in case they need to run something that will only run on that platform.
I would say: Grow up Craig!
It's a license issue because Microsoft are not selling licenses for Windows for ARM! They already have the bulk of the product, and they're shipping it embedded on Surface Go machines. The amount of work to get Windows for ARM working for Apple Silicon and available as a download and purchase is likely to be trivial for Microsoft but they aren't doing it. And you're blaming Apple for some baffling reason.
Microsoft only has a limited, restricted version of WIndows working on ARM processors. It's not a licensing issue. It's a functionality issue: it can't run (adequately) on an M1 processor.
Comments
Whilst I understand that there are some people that still need Bootcamp, I agree that things are very different nowadays.
It's Apple who left Intel and Windows, not the other way around. And, it's Apple trying to sell their computers. It's in both their interest and the interest of their customers.
Microsoft so far doesn’t have the will, the IT world has them firmly in the past.
Really?
Microsoft own Windows.
Microsoft develop Windows.
Microsoft sells Windows.
Microsoft choose which platforms they develop and sell Windows for.
For their own reasons, they have decided they don't want to sell Windows For ARM as a standalone OS yet. That's got nothing to do with Apple and everything to do with Microsoft.
This is a bizarre angle George. Are Apple also responsible for every developer that hasn't ported to Apple Silicon yet?
The actual quote, without George's misreading and spin:
You've made a big list of assumptions and guesses, but nowhere have you considered the possibility that Apple are assisting Microsoft, but Microsoft just aren't interested or haven't got the product ready yet. Either do the sensible thing and don't blame anyone at all, or (if you must) at least blame the company that's making the pertinent decisions.
If Microsoft wants Windows to run on M1 Macs, they have to MAKE IT AVAILABLE.
As yet, it is not, as it comes ONLY with Microsoft's own ARM-based computers.
Microsoft only has a limited, restricted version of WIndows working on ARM processors. It's not a licensing issue. It's a functionality issue: it can't run (adequately) on an M1 processor.