And I have work with some of those workstations, and the performance is not as pathetic as you mention. Some of them have advantages over Apple Silicon, specially when comparing the GPU.
You say "workstations" whereas what you quoted said "laptops". Big difference. Apple Silicon's performance really shines in power-constrained situations. If you can run plugged into the wall and with big heat sinks, then the Intel/AMD CPUs and the nVidia/AMD GPUs can burn copious power to deliver serious performance. They're still inefficient in terms of compute per watt, but you don't notice as watts are cheap in such a situation.
It would be interesting to see a large scale data centre built from ARM-based machines and compared to ones build from Intel/AMD-based machines, and compare the operating costs. Some of the big cloud vendors offer lower cost ARM-based hosts just for this reason -- they greatly reduce energy and cooling costs in the data centre. Not Apple's focus though, so we aren't likely to see Apple Silicon based data centres (except perhaps for Apple's own, but they are typically very secretive about that).
There is a group of laptops that are considered workstations (Dell Precision, HP Z mobile workstation, Lenovo ThinkPad P-series). The quality of componentes, warranty / service and specs are different from a notebook that you buy in a consumer retailer. Also, they are certified for ISV's like Autodesk, Bentley Software, Siemens and others. That's the reason I used the term workstation and not laptops.
I also know the benefits of Apple Intelligence and ARM in general, especially with power efficiency. But there are cases where some specialized applications use CUDA / Optix, and you are required to use Nvidia adapters. In datacenters is very difference, and even more with AI. There are even rumors of Apple dealing with Nvidia for their datacenters.
Large cloud providers also have their own AI processors (Amazon Trainium2, Azure Maia and Google Axion). Maybe these processors have advantages over ARM and Apple Silicon for AI tasks. My point is that ARM and Apple Silicon is not the magic CPU that will solve all problems. It has many advantages over Intel and AMD in some tasks. But Intel, AMD and Nvidia have some advantages over ARM / Apple too.
At the end, It's good to have competition working for us.
The competition from Intel, AMD, and Nvidia is commendable in theory, but Apple boasts several in-house operating systems (ecosystems) that make direct competition with them impractical. I don’t believe any of these companies will be working for Apple again. Two out of the three had their chance, and like Samsung’s (chip division), they only caused trouble for Apple.
Apple Silicon isn’t magical, but the absence of an in-house OS prevents these companies from optimizing their hardware to an operating system, putting them behind Apple. This is also why Microsoft is frantically flailing around with Qualcomm, attempting to revive its failing and unprofitable Surface computer line.
You have to consider that Apple ecosystem may have some benefits. But at the same time, it doesn't means it's the best experience for every case. For example, gaming is far better with Nvidia, AMD and Intel than with Apple, even with all the advantages their ecosystem have. The same can be said in the enterprise, where Microsoft have a big advantage, a no other company comes close.
And you when you talk about the Surface line, you have to think that Apple is not the only one competing with them. HP, Dell and Lenovo outsell Microsoft (and even Apple) by a large margin. And these are the top three among many others. With Windows, customers have choices, not that much with Apple. That's the reason I think you cannot make a 1:1 comparison of sales numbers between Apple vs Microsoft.
BTW, from I have seen, the Qualcomm Snapdragon Elite looks very competitive, even with Apple. And there are rumors that Nvidia have something to announce soon.
Qualcomm Snapdragon Elite isn’t competitive with anything Apple has done when it comes to Apple Silicon in fact, they can’t help cheating with their the benchmarks.
To make matters worse, the Snapdragon phone SOC’S are five-six years behind Apple they can barely achieve iPhone 11 Pro Speed notice the Snapdragon Samsung S24 uses an eight core SOC whereas all of the 11 Pro iPhones use only six cores, the Samsung using the Snapdragon at eight cores is barely ahead of a six year old iPhone. (Soon they will be seven generations back). Apples, only mistake was not including two more gigs of RAM in their iPhones, in short they optimize the little too much in that area.
Qualcomm has more problems than that and they don’t match Apple in anything when it comes to SOC’s. They do have better lawyers however defending their modem monopoly.
Qualcomm is years off the pace that Apple sets. Snapdragon eight core vs Apple six core that’s running behind an iPhone 13 just ahead of a iPhone 12 Pro Max (a iPhone that was released five years ago by Apple). The only good news is that they are ahead of the Google Tensor which is even further behind.
Qualcomm tried to make themselves look better with a SOC that is many years behind Apple Silicon, I don’t think the new Apple C1 modem is that far back of Qualcomm current modem chips which probably means another trip to court for Apple because Qualcomm Is a bit of a cheat and a patent troll.
Not only is Apple designing first rate Apple Silicon SOC chips across the board, but the ability to have five (OS) ecosystems integrated/optimize with their Apple Silicon chips puts them far ahead of their competition only government interference in the USA, China, or the EU is where they’re going have their biggest problems going forward.
PS a hardware company (Dell, HP others) without an in-house OS isn’t competition not if you want to make the best, Qualcomm’s problem is not just Apple. It’s also Microsoft, who will never feel the sense of urgency very similar to Intel, IBM or Motorola of Schaumburg, Illinois when Apple suggested, smaller faster, more energy efficient chips might be needed going into the future. Microsoft is too busy working on Recall or is it Cloudstrike?
And I have work with some of those workstations, and the performance is not as pathetic as you mention. Some of them have advantages over Apple Silicon, specially when comparing the GPU.
You say "workstations" whereas what you quoted said "laptops". Big difference. Apple Silicon's performance really shines in power-constrained situations. If you can run plugged into the wall and with big heat sinks, then the Intel/AMD CPUs and the nVidia/AMD GPUs can burn copious power to deliver serious performance. They're still inefficient in terms of compute per watt, but you don't notice as watts are cheap in such a situation.
It would be interesting to see a large scale data centre built from ARM-based machines and compared to ones build from Intel/AMD-based machines, and compare the operating costs. Some of the big cloud vendors offer lower cost ARM-based hosts just for this reason -- they greatly reduce energy and cooling costs in the data centre. Not Apple's focus though, so we aren't likely to see Apple Silicon based data centres (except perhaps for Apple's own, but they are typically very secretive about that).
There is a group of laptops that are considered workstations (Dell Precision, HP Z mobile workstation, Lenovo ThinkPad P-series). The quality of componentes, warranty / service and specs are different from a notebook that you buy in a consumer retailer. Also, they are certified for ISV's like Autodesk, Bentley Software, Siemens and others. That's the reason I used the term workstation and not laptops.
I also know the benefits of Apple Intelligence and ARM in general, especially with power efficiency. But there are cases where some specialized applications use CUDA / Optix, and you are required to use Nvidia adapters. In datacenters is very difference, and even more with AI. There are even rumors of Apple dealing with Nvidia for their datacenters.
Large cloud providers also have their own AI processors (Amazon Trainium2, Azure Maia and Google Axion). Maybe these processors have advantages over ARM and Apple Silicon for AI tasks. My point is that ARM and Apple Silicon is not the magic CPU that will solve all problems. It has many advantages over Intel and AMD in some tasks. But Intel, AMD and Nvidia have some advantages over ARM / Apple too.
At the end, It's good to have competition working for us.
The competition from Intel, AMD, and Nvidia is commendable in theory, but Apple boasts several in-house operating systems (ecosystems) that make direct competition with them impractical. I don’t believe any of these companies will be working for Apple again. Two out of the three had their chance, and like Samsung’s (chip division), they only caused trouble for Apple.
Apple Silicon isn’t magical, but the absence of an in-house OS prevents these companies from optimizing their hardware to an operating system, putting them behind Apple. This is also why Microsoft is frantically flailing around with Qualcomm, attempting to revive its failing and unprofitable Surface computer line.
You have to consider that Apple ecosystem may have some benefits. But at the same time, it doesn't means it's the best experience for every case. For example, gaming is far better with Nvidia, AMD and Intel than with Apple, even with all the advantages their ecosystem have. The same can be said in the enterprise, where Microsoft have a big advantage, a no other company comes close.
And you when you talk about the Surface line, you have to think that Apple is not the only one competing with them. HP, Dell and Lenovo outsell Microsoft (and even Apple) by a large margin. And these are the top three among many others. With Windows, customers have choices, not that much with Apple. That's the reason I think you cannot make a 1:1 comparison of sales numbers between Apple vs Microsoft.
BTW, from I have seen, the Qualcomm Snapdragon Elite looks very competitive, even with Apple. And there are rumors that Nvidia have something to announce soon.
Qualcomm Snapdragon Elite isn’t competitive with anything Apple has done when it comes to Apple Silicon in fact, they can’t help cheating with their the benchmarks.
To make matters worse, the Snapdragon phone SOC’S are five-six years behind Apple they can barely achieve iPhone 11 Pro Speed notice the Snapdragon Samsung S24 uses an eight core SOC whereas all of the 11 Pro iPhones use only six cores, the Samsung using the Snapdragon at eight cores is barely ahead of a six year old iPhone. (Soon they will be seven generations back). Apples, only mistake was not including two more gigs of RAM in their iPhones, in short they optimize the little too much in that area.
Qualcomm has more problems than that and they don’t match Apple in anything when it comes to SOC’s. They do have better lawyers however defending their modem monopoly.
Qualcomm is years off the pace that Apple sets. Snapdragon eight core vs Apple six core that’s running behind an iPhone 13 just ahead of a iPhone 12 Pro Max (a iPhone that was released five years ago by Apple). The only good news is that they are ahead of the Google Tensor which is even further behind.
Qualcomm tried to make themselves look better with a SOC that is many years behind Apple Silicon, I don’t think the new Apple C1 modem is that far back of Qualcomm current modem chips which probably means another trip to court for Apple because Qualcomm Is a bit of a cheat and a patent troll.
Not only is Apple designing first rate Apple Silicon SOC chips across the board, but the ability to have five (OS) ecosystems integrated/optimize with their Apple Silicon chips puts them far ahead of their competition only government interference in the USA, China, or the EU is where they’re going have their biggest problems going forward.
PS a hardware company (Dell, HP others) without an in-house OS isn’t competition not if you want to make the best, Qualcomm’s problem is not just Apple. It’s also Microsoft, who will never feel the sense of urgency very similar to Intel, IBM or Motorola of Schaumburg, Illinois when Apple suggested, smaller faster, more energy efficient chips might be needed going into the future. Microsoft is too busy working on Recall or is it Cloudstrike?
I could agree that Apple may have an advantage with iOS over Android. But chip vs chip, it's not as far as you may think.
Looks like you don't know about the lawsuit. Qualcomm won, Qualcomm secures key licensing win as Arm lawsuit ends in mistrial | Nasdaq The other three links were rumors before the release of the Qualcomm X Elite processors, and at the end, Qualcomm benchmarks were right and were close to the Apple M3.
An in-house OS have advantages, but it doesn't make it the best for every case, like the examples I gave with gaming and the enterprise, among other cases.
MS had Recall running in a recent Windows 11 beta version. Hope it works as promised. BTW, how is Siri doing?
Did the change make increase the marketshare for the Mac? All the "it is fast" and "it uses less energy" are nice but did it really change anything?
Yes.
"Marketshare" is usually defined by the consumer market, so you'd be forgiven for thinking all this innovation on Apple's part hasn't "moved the needle" much on consumer sales. But that's because all computers are far more powerful than 90 percent of the consumer market requires.
You also may be missing that consumer computing is not largely done on smartphones/tablets/laptops, not the traditional home PC anymore. This is a huge shift over the last 20 years.
Where the move to the M-series helped Apple enormously is in increasing Mac/Apple marketshare in specialized areas like scientific work, video rendering, and other high-end uses. It also helps Apple keep its edge in smartphones/tablets by making the iPhone/iPad more responsive than any Android-based product I've tried.
This in turn benefits Apple, because specialized markets are where the profits are, and because the superior hardware engineering of Apple products in turn attracts leading hardware engineers to the company, who contribute significantly to further innovation. This has helped Apple keep up its profit margins while delivering industry-leading performance, which funds the research needed to achieve these remarkable improvements.
Not a lot of this is consumer-facing at present, but these high-end innovations do continue to grow the company and very incrementally increase its share of the "personal computer" market. Apple focuses on consumer product, and will always be a second-place runner behind Intel, but its certainly no longer considered a "niche" player in consumer electronics.
I'm not complaining- really- i have a fully loaded M4 Max MBP, but if Apple charged fair prices for RAM and SSD storage, they would likely triple their market share. People still see Macs as "overpriced luxury items," which is clearly unfair.
I'm not complaining- really- i have a fully loaded M4 Max MBP, but if Apple charged fair prices for RAM and SSD storage, they would likely triple their market share. People still see Macs as "overpriced luxury items," which is clearly unfair.
No they wouldn't, other manufacturers charge similar prices, and pricing and product strategy say otherwise regarding "triple their market share." Plus, it's not about market share, it's about profit.
When the M1 came out, intel was two full nodes behind TSMC — a huge and embarrassing gap.
today Intel is maybe a half node behind, so they made progress. But with Gelsinger fired and the new management slashing spending, it seems unlikely that Intel will catch up.
Apple Silicon is one of the best planned and best executed moves by Apple - ever. If you're going to talk about Tim Cook's legacy, Apple Silicon has to be one of the crown jewels of his accomplishments at Apple. Truly masterful.
I think you are right that Cook has quietly masterminded an absolutely unmatched in house development in the industry, but I also recall that it was the purchase of PA Semi that laid the ground work for all this, and the A4 was really the point that this march was started. Jobs had the foresight here, and Cook has done the legwork.
This is no fluke or flash in the pan, this is 17 years of solid and measurable year on year progression and advancement from nobodies to top tier without a single blip. That's a record anyone in any industry would be rightly proud of.
Did the change make increase the market share for the Mac? All the "it is fast" and "it uses less energy" are nice but did it really change anything?
I think the goal of Apple Silicon was for Apple to not be held hostage by Intel's development cycle.
That happened but as fabless we see how Apple now depend on TSMC (and the stability in their region). And it didn't boost iPad or Mac sales to get M-series. Or?
Dependency on having a contract-manufacturer of your custom chips is not at all the same thing as being dependent on a third-party chip manufacturer who has its own product line, schedule, and may or may not allocate you inventory.
And I have work with some of those workstations, and the performance is not as pathetic as you mention. Some of them have advantages over Apple Silicon, specially when comparing the GPU.
You say "workstations" whereas what you quoted said "laptops". Big difference. Apple Silicon's performance really shines in power-constrained situations. If you can run plugged into the wall and with big heat sinks, then the Intel/AMD CPUs and the nVidia/AMD GPUs can burn copious power to deliver serious performance. They're still inefficient in terms of compute per watt, but you don't notice as watts are cheap in such a situation.
It would be interesting to see a large scale data centre built from ARM-based machines and compared to ones build from Intel/AMD-based machines, and compare the operating costs. Some of the big cloud vendors offer lower cost ARM-based hosts just for this reason -- they greatly reduce energy and cooling costs in the data centre. Not Apple's focus though, so we aren't likely to see Apple Silicon based data centres (except perhaps for Apple's own, but they are typically very secretive about that).
There is a group of laptops that are considered workstations (Dell Precision, HP Z mobile workstation, Lenovo ThinkPad P-series). The quality of componentes, warranty / service and specs are different from a notebook that you buy in a consumer retailer. Also, they are certified for ISV's like Autodesk, Bentley Software, Siemens and others. That's the reason I used the term workstation and not laptops.
I also know the benefits of Apple Intelligence and ARM in general, especially with power efficiency. But there are cases where some specialized applications use CUDA / Optix, and you are required to use Nvidia adapters. In datacenters is very difference, and even more with AI. There are even rumors of Apple dealing with Nvidia for their datacenters.
Large cloud providers also have their own AI processors (Amazon Trainium2, Azure Maia and Google Axion). Maybe these processors have advantages over ARM and Apple Silicon for AI tasks. My point is that ARM and Apple Silicon is not the magic CPU that will solve all problems. It has many advantages over Intel and AMD in some tasks. But Intel, AMD and Nvidia have some advantages over ARM / Apple too.
At the end, It's good to have competition working for us.
The competition from Intel, AMD, and Nvidia is commendable in theory, but Apple boasts several in-house operating systems (ecosystems) that make direct competition with them impractical. I don’t believe any of these companies will be working for Apple again. Two out of the three had their chance, and like Samsung’s (chip division), they only caused trouble for Apple.
Apple Silicon isn’t magical, but the absence of an in-house OS prevents these companies from optimizing their hardware to an operating system, putting them behind Apple. This is also why Microsoft is frantically flailing around with Qualcomm, attempting to revive its failing and unprofitable Surface computer line.
You have to consider that Apple ecosystem may have some benefits. But at the same time, it doesn't means it's the best experience for every case. For example, gaming is far better with Nvidia, AMD and Intel than with Apple, even with all the advantages their ecosystem have. The same can be said in the enterprise, where Microsoft have a big advantage, a no other company comes close.
And you when you talk about the Surface line, you have to think that Apple is not the only one competing with them. HP, Dell and Lenovo outsell Microsoft (and even Apple) by a large margin. And these are the top three among many others. With Windows, customers have choices, not that much with Apple. That's the reason I think you cannot make a 1:1 comparison of sales numbers between Apple vs Microsoft.
BTW, from I have seen, the Qualcomm Snapdragon Elite looks very competitive, even with Apple. And there are rumors that Nvidia have something to announce soon.
I don't want to get into the whole thing, but the Qualcomm chip isn't that competitive with Apple's chip. it's more of a conventual SoC, other than the better CPUs from Nuvia. It is more efficient than AND and Intel. but there is, right now, poor compatibility with Windows apps and computers using the chips have been sales disappointments.
Did the change make increase the marketshare for the Mac? All the "it is fast" and "it uses less energy" are nice but did it really change anything?
Market share is not the correct question. Apple leads the profit-share in the PC market, which is quantifiably more valuable.
Market share can be the correct question. It indicates the value consumers see in products. The market share for Mac was 8.7% in 2020 and still is. Clearly Apple Silicon didn't boost Mac sales. With no growth in sales there won't be increased sales of services or Apple Care or keyboards/monitors. At best Apple Silicon allowed Mac to stand still.
Do we even know that Apple Silicon improved profits? Intel Lunar Lake is using a similar on-chip RAM but Intel rejected it from future chips due to impact on margins.
Apple Silicon is one of the best planned and best executed moves by Apple - ever. If you're going to talk about Tim Cook's legacy, Apple Silicon has to be one of the crown jewels of his accomplishments at Apple. Truly masterful.
I think you are right that Cook has quietly masterminded an absolutely unmatched in house development in the industry, but I also recall that it was the purchase of PA Semi that laid the ground work for all this, and the A4 was really the point that this march was started. Jobs had the foresight here, and Cook has done the legwork.
This is no fluke or flash in the pan, this is 17 years of solid and measurable year on year progression and advancement from nobodies to top tier without a single blip. That's a record anyone in any industry would be rightly proud of.
All of that came about because of Steve Jobs previous experience with Motorola of Schaumburg, Illinois (no), and IBM (no), the final straw was Intel saying no to any development of smaller faster better CPUs/SOCs for the iPhone all three American companies were asked to move forward into the future and all three declined.
And I have work with some of those workstations, and the performance is not as pathetic as you mention. Some of them have advantages over Apple Silicon, specially when comparing the GPU.
You say "workstations" whereas what you quoted said "laptops". Big difference. Apple Silicon's performance really shines in power-constrained situations. If you can run plugged into the wall and with big heat sinks, then the Intel/AMD CPUs and the nVidia/AMD GPUs can burn copious power to deliver serious performance. They're still inefficient in terms of compute per watt, but you don't notice as watts are cheap in such a situation.
It would be interesting to see a large scale data centre built from ARM-based machines and compared to ones build from Intel/AMD-based machines, and compare the operating costs. Some of the big cloud vendors offer lower cost ARM-based hosts just for this reason -- they greatly reduce energy and cooling costs in the data centre. Not Apple's focus though, so we aren't likely to see Apple Silicon based data centres (except perhaps for Apple's own, but they are typically very secretive about that).
There is a group of laptops that are considered workstations (Dell Precision, HP Z mobile workstation, Lenovo ThinkPad P-series). The quality of componentes, warranty / service and specs are different from a notebook that you buy in a consumer retailer. Also, they are certified for ISV's like Autodesk, Bentley Software, Siemens and others. That's the reason I used the term workstation and not laptops.
I also know the benefits of Apple Intelligence and ARM in general, especially with power efficiency. But there are cases where some specialized applications use CUDA / Optix, and you are required to use Nvidia adapters. In datacenters is very difference, and even more with AI. There are even rumors of Apple dealing with Nvidia for their datacenters.
Large cloud providers also have their own AI processors (Amazon Trainium2, Azure Maia and Google Axion). Maybe these processors have advantages over ARM and Apple Silicon for AI tasks. My point is that ARM and Apple Silicon is not the magic CPU that will solve all problems. It has many advantages over Intel and AMD in some tasks. But Intel, AMD and Nvidia have some advantages over ARM / Apple too.
At the end, It's good to have competition working for us.
The competition from Intel, AMD, and Nvidia is commendable in theory, but Apple boasts several in-house operating systems (ecosystems) that make direct competition with them impractical. I don’t believe any of these companies will be working for Apple again. Two out of the three had their chance, and like Samsung’s (chip division), they only caused trouble for Apple.
Apple Silicon isn’t magical, but the absence of an in-house OS prevents these companies from optimizing their hardware to an operating system, putting them behind Apple. This is also why Microsoft is frantically flailing around with Qualcomm, attempting to revive its failing and unprofitable Surface computer line.
You have to consider that Apple ecosystem may have some benefits. But at the same time, it doesn't means it's the best experience for every case. For example, gaming is far better with Nvidia, AMD and Intel than with Apple, even with all the advantages their ecosystem have. The same can be said in the enterprise, where Microsoft have a big advantage, a no other company comes close.
And you when you talk about the Surface line, you have to think that Apple is not the only one competing with them. HP, Dell and Lenovo outsell Microsoft (and even Apple) by a large margin. And these are the top three among many others. With Windows, customers have choices, not that much with Apple. That's the reason I think you cannot make a 1:1 comparison of sales numbers between Apple vs Microsoft.
BTW, from I have seen, the Qualcomm Snapdragon Elite looks very competitive, even with Apple. And there are rumors that Nvidia have something to announce soon.
I don't want to get into the whole thing, but the Qualcomm chip isn't that competitive with Apple's chip. it's more of a conventual SoC, other than the better CPUs from Nuvia. It is more efficient than AND and Intel. but there is, right now, poor compatibility with Windows apps and computers using the chips have been sales disappointments.
The weak link in the (Qualcomm) Surface partnership so far is Microsoft they’ve feverishly working on their AI software (CoPilot) and their gaming empire, Microsoft didn’t even get close to what Apple did with Rosetta one and with all the billions of dollars they spent/gave to OpenAI I think that partnership is third in line.
M1 Pro Max with 64 GBs of memory is still incredibly fast and loving every bit of it but day-to-day M1 Air with 8 GBs of memory is wearing thin. I'll likely upgrade to the MacBook Air once it gets an M5, and the pro-whenever the funds become available as it will be one expensive machine!
I'm not complaining- really- i have a fully loaded M4 Max MBP, but if Apple charged fair prices for RAM and SSD storage, they would likely triple their market share. People still see Macs as "overpriced luxury items," which is clearly unfair.
No they wouldn't, other manufacturers charge similar prices, and pricing and product strategy say otherwise regarding "triple their market share." Plus, it's not about market share, it's about profit.
Wow, it is amazing how full of it you are. Please show me another manufacturer that charges $1,400 for 128GB of memory and $2,400 for 8TB of SSD. And don't claim it is because of Apple Silicon. Apple had these same ridiculous and extortion prices with Intel Macs too, when they started soldering everything to the board.
Apple Silicon is one of the best planned and best executed moves by Apple - ever. If you're going to talk about Tim Cook's legacy, Apple Silicon has to be one of the crown jewels of his accomplishments at Apple. Truly masterful.
Fortunately, Apple does not appear to be resting on its laurels with Apple Silicon. The competition is hot on Apple's heels and they have emerged from way way over the horizon to be within striking distance. As long as Apple continues to leverage not only the success of Apple Silicon, but everything else that makes Apple so unique, they will be in great shape. There can be no pause in the action. Intel paused and AMD caught them. Intel paused some more and Apple abandoned them. Now Intel is struggling to get back just to the wake of the slowest leaders.
I know there has been a lot of turmoil and disruption in the marketplace caused by politics, and Apple has stumbled a little bit with Apple Intelligence and Siri, but it seems from the outside looking in that Apple still has its foot firmly planted on the accelerator pedal when it comes to Apple Silicon. They have to. Apple can't wait for the dust to settle from the passing bullshitnado to figure out where their next opportunity will be. Apple Silicon needs to stay on the fast track.
Are you in a reality distortion field? 1) Tim Cook had nothing to do with Apple Silicon. Apple had been using their own chips since the iPhone 4 in 2010 with the A4 chip. The A chips and M chips are ARM processors. Apple did not invent ARM. The first ARM-based Mac was the development Mac mini with the A12Z, another evolution of the A chip. The first M chip was based off the A14. It was a natural evolution to start using ARM chips in Macs. Rumors about that swirled for years.
2) The best executed move by Apple? It took Apple 3 1/2 years to finish transitioning all Macs to Apple Silicon. Apple finished the Intel transition in 278 days. Apple did a better job transitioning from 680x0 to PowerPC, compared to the Apple Silicon transition. And the final Apple Silicon Mac? The disastrous Mac Pro that was a huge disappointment, and still is. The first M1 Macs were avoided in the Enterprise market because they didn't support multiple external displays. It took Apple over a year to fix that mistake with the M1 Pro and M1 Max.
3) Apple has its foot on the accelerator pedal? Really? With Intel, Apple had new and faster Macs each year. With Apple Silicon, it has taken years for Apple to update the Macs. Some Macs were completely abandoned for years, hello M1 iMac, no upgrade for about 2 years. Apple called the MacBook Air 15" new, but used a year and a half old M2 chip. iPads got better M chips before Macs, yet the iPads could not take advantage of the faster chip. The Mac Pro still has an outdated M2 Ultra chip, has useless expansion slots, and costs a staggering $7,000. Only when the M4 came out, 6 months after doing nothing in an iPad, Apple finally updates all the Macs, except for the Mac Pro. Apple's roadmap is a mess. Intel Macs were faster than PowerPC and cost less. Jobs made that happen. Apple Silicon Macs have gone up in price, especially with RAM and SSD upgrades that users are no longer allowed to upgrade later.
Yes, Apple Silicon is fast. But Apple's execution is just bizarre. Macs abandoned and not updated. iPads getting better chips than Macs. No wonder no one knows what to buy or when to upgrade. With Apple's ridiculous prices on memory and SSD, users are forced to pay the tax up front for the upgrades, I would never buy a new Mac. I would buy one on clearance from B&H at a heavily reduced price that is nicely upgraded.
Yes, mainly true, but Apple also hung their loyal Users out to dry by not fixing or replacing the defective Graphics Cards on the 17" Mac Book Pro and 27" iMacs, and they left the Mac and 27" iMac customers in the Dark, not knowing whether the devices would be updated or permanently eliminated. However, after eliminating ports and having horrible keyboards, Apple improved the I/O and the Macs and iPads are lightning fast, quiet in most situations, and Superb battery life, with great performance plugged up or on battery. This cannot be denied, and the M-series Devices are so good, that most people don't really have a need to upgrade from the M1 Series.
Comments
To make matters worse, the Snapdragon phone SOC’S are five-six years behind Apple they can barely achieve iPhone 11 Pro Speed notice the Snapdragon Samsung S24 uses an eight core SOC whereas all of the 11 Pro iPhones use only six cores, the Samsung using the Snapdragon at eight cores is barely ahead of a six year old iPhone. (Soon they will be seven generations back). Apples, only mistake was not including two more gigs of RAM in their iPhones, in short they optimize the little too much in that area.
https://browser.geekbench.com/mobile-benchmarks Years ahead generationally.
Qualcomm has more problems than that and they don’t match Apple in anything when it comes to SOC’s. They do have better lawyers however defending their modem monopoly.
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/09/arm-sues-qualcomm-over-its-1-4-billion-nuvia-acquisition/
Qualcomm is years off the pace that Apple sets. Snapdragon eight core vs Apple six core that’s running behind an iPhone 13 just ahead of a iPhone 12 Pro Max (a iPhone that was released five years ago by Apple). The only good news is that they are ahead of the Google Tensor which is even further behind.
https://www.notebookcheck.net/Apple-M4-SoC-analysis-AMD-Intel-and-Qualcomm-currently-don-t-stand-a-chance.839332.0.html Not even in the ballpark….https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/qualcomm-faces-benchmark-cheating-allegations-snapdragon-x-eliteplus-benchmarks-claimed-to-be-fraudulent#xenforo-comments-3843099
https://itc.ua/en/news/not-a-competitor-to-apple-and-intel-qualcomm-is-cheating-with-snapdragon-x-chip-tests-insiders-say-manufacturers-didn-t-achieve-the-results/
Qualcomm tried to make themselves look better with a SOC that is many years behind Apple Silicon, I don’t think the new Apple C1 modem is that far back of Qualcomm current modem chips which probably means another trip to court for Apple because Qualcomm Is a bit of a cheat and a patent troll.
Not only is Apple designing first rate Apple Silicon SOC chips across the board, but the ability to have five (OS) ecosystems integrated/optimize with their Apple Silicon chips puts them far ahead of their competition only government interference in the USA, China, or the EU is where they’re going have their biggest problems going forward.
PS a hardware company (Dell, HP others) without an in-house OS isn’t competition not if you want to make the best, Qualcomm’s problem is not just Apple. It’s also Microsoft, who will never feel the sense of urgency very similar to Intel, IBM or Motorola of Schaumburg, Illinois when Apple suggested, smaller faster, more energy efficient chips might be needed going into the future. Microsoft is too busy working on Recall or is it Cloudstrike?
Snapdragon 8 Elite vs Apple A18 Pro: Benchmark showdown - Gizmochina
Snapdragon 8 Elite Benchmarks: It beats Apple A18 Pro
I could agree that Apple may have an advantage with iOS over Android. But chip vs chip, it's not as far as you may think.
Looks like you don't know about the lawsuit. Qualcomm won,
Qualcomm secures key licensing win as Arm lawsuit ends in mistrial | Nasdaq
The other three links were rumors before the release of the Qualcomm X Elite processors, and at the end, Qualcomm benchmarks were right and were close to the Apple M3.
An in-house OS have advantages, but it doesn't make it the best for every case, like the examples I gave with gaming and the enterprise, among other cases.
MS had Recall running in a recent Windows 11 beta version. Hope it works as promised. BTW, how is Siri doing?
And what is Cloudstrike? You are talking about CrowdStrike, right? If that's the case, looks like MS is moving away from the kernel,
Windows security and resiliency: Protecting your business | Windows Experience Blog
That's good news, right?
You also may be missing that consumer computing is not largely done on smartphones/tablets/laptops, not the traditional home PC anymore. This is a huge shift over the last 20 years.
Not a lot of this is consumer-facing at present, but these high-end innovations do continue to grow the company and very incrementally increase its share of the "personal computer" market. Apple focuses on consumer product, and will always be a second-place runner behind Intel, but its certainly no longer considered a "niche" player in consumer electronics.
today Intel is maybe a half node behind, so they made progress. But with Gelsinger fired and the new management slashing spending, it seems unlikely that Intel will catch up.
This is no fluke or flash in the pan, this is 17 years of solid and measurable year on year progression and advancement from nobodies to top tier without a single blip. That's a record anyone in any industry would be rightly proud of.
Dependency on having a contract-manufacturer of your custom chips is not at all the same thing as being dependent on a third-party chip manufacturer who has its own product line, schedule, and may or may not allocate you inventory.
Why do you think having the most profit share matters? All those PC brands are making enough money to stay in good business within the mass market.
Every PC sold is potentially one less Mac sold, on top of the premium margin users have to pay for on Macs too.
Surely Apple would like to have more market share if it could.
There are many factors involved in weighing up choices between Macs and PCs. Some of them will be financial while others won't.
However, price will always be one of the determining factors.
I don't want to get into the whole thing, but the Qualcomm chip isn't that competitive with Apple's chip. it's more of a conventual SoC, other than the better CPUs from Nuvia. It is more efficient than AND and Intel. but there is, right now, poor compatibility with Windows apps and computers using the chips have been sales disappointments.
Do we even know that Apple Silicon improved profits? Intel Lunar Lake is using a similar on-chip RAM but Intel rejected it from future chips due to impact on margins.
The weak link in the (Qualcomm) Surface partnership so far is Microsoft they’ve feverishly working on their AI software (CoPilot) and their gaming empire, Microsoft didn’t even get close to what Apple did with Rosetta one and with all the billions of dollars they spent/gave to OpenAI I think that partnership is third in line.
1) Tim Cook had nothing to do with Apple Silicon. Apple had been using their own chips since the iPhone 4 in 2010 with the A4 chip. The A chips and M chips are ARM processors. Apple did not invent ARM. The first ARM-based Mac was the development Mac mini with the A12Z, another evolution of the A chip. The first M chip was based off the A14. It was a natural evolution to start using ARM chips in Macs. Rumors about that swirled for years.
2) The best executed move by Apple? It took Apple 3 1/2 years to finish transitioning all Macs to Apple Silicon. Apple finished the Intel transition in 278 days. Apple did a better job transitioning from 680x0 to PowerPC, compared to the Apple Silicon transition. And the final Apple Silicon Mac? The disastrous Mac Pro that was a huge disappointment, and still is. The first M1 Macs were avoided in the Enterprise market because they didn't support multiple external displays. It took Apple over a year to fix that mistake with the M1 Pro and M1 Max.
3) Apple has its foot on the accelerator pedal? Really? With Intel, Apple had new and faster Macs each year. With Apple Silicon, it has taken years for Apple to update the Macs. Some Macs were completely abandoned for years, hello M1 iMac, no upgrade for about 2 years. Apple called the MacBook Air 15" new, but used a year and a half old M2 chip. iPads got better M chips before Macs, yet the iPads could not take advantage of the faster chip. The Mac Pro still has an outdated M2 Ultra chip, has useless expansion slots, and costs a staggering $7,000. Only when the M4 came out, 6 months after doing nothing in an iPad, Apple finally updates all the Macs, except for the Mac Pro. Apple's roadmap is a mess. Intel Macs were faster than PowerPC and cost less. Jobs made that happen. Apple Silicon Macs have gone up in price, especially with RAM and SSD upgrades that users are no longer allowed to upgrade later.
Yes, Apple Silicon is fast. But Apple's execution is just bizarre. Macs abandoned and not updated. iPads getting better chips than Macs. No wonder no one knows what to buy or when to upgrade. With Apple's ridiculous prices on memory and SSD, users are forced to pay the tax up front for the upgrades, I would never buy a new Mac. I would buy one on clearance from B&H at a heavily reduced price that is nicely upgraded.