kamilton

sockrolid said:

AppleInsider said:

So, which processor?

All of this hand-wringing (and loss of pro users) is the result of Apple's dependence on Intel.
Intel's schedule and long-term goals are independent of Apple's.  No more exclusivity deals.
In the long term, Apple could follow several radically different processor strategies:

1. Stay with Intel and suffer

No first-adopter exclusivity deals for new processors means that Apple will never be able to claim
any performance advantage over Wintel PCs.   Lower volumes than most other computer makers
means that Apple does not benefit from high-volume economy-of-scale.  

Worst of all, Apple is totally dependent on Intel's good will.  Apple needs Intel more than Intel
needs Apple.  The result?  A deal almost as bad as the Motorola/IBM years (1994-2006).
Apple typically tries to control their own destiny by signing multiple suppliers for components,
or by designing custom parts (Ax SoCs for example).  Not going to happen with Intel, except 
for a possible Ax chip deal.

Pros: Apple never falls behind the rest of the PC world because they get the same chips.
Cons: Apple never gets ahead of the rest of the PC world because they get the same chips.
Net: unhappy relationship in a legacy market.

2. Transition Macs to Ax RISC architecture

I used to think that some day Apple would unify iOS and OS X.  And that all Apple devices would
run on a variant of their ARM-based Ax architecture.  Ax chip speeds are still increasing rapidly 
every year, and the iOS 64-bit transition happened years ago.  Seamlessly.

But no.  Switching Macs to RISC would be a terrible idea.  Sure, it could be done.  Apple has
made several bet-the-farm Mac processor transitions over the decades.  68K -> RISC.
RISC -> x86.  All just as seamlessly as the iOS 64-bit transition.

Still a terrible idea.  Look at what happened when Microsoft tried to mash up Windows and Windows Phone.
Worst of both worlds.  Do I mouse-click or tap?  What happened to the (insert favorite feature here)?
iOS users are happy with very rapid advancement.  OS X / macOS users like things to stay as they are,
plus or minus a few cosmetic tweaks here and there for freshness' sake.  Try to mash up iOS and macOS
and there will be a million pissed-off users storming The Mothership with flaming USB pitchforks.

Even worse - Microsoft and Adobe and other "Pro" app publishers might not ever port their apps to 
the iOS / macOS hybrid.  A lot of work for such a small market.  It took a decade for Adobe to migrate
their bloatware suites from Mac OS 9 to OS X.  They might never port their bloatware to a unified iOS / macOS.
(And yeah.  Microsoft would never port Windows to the hybrid OS, so goodbye suckers who run Windows on Macs.)

Pros: lower SoC cost with no Intel tax, possible reduction in OS and apple App code base.
Cons: loss of all "Pro" users, loss of many traditionalist consumer-level users, and wouldn't run Windows.
Net: slight benefit in component costs, horrendous cost in good will and user base.

3. Buy AMD and make custom x86-based CPUs

Apple did their own custom ARM architecture to great effect.  Transitioned it to 64-bit long before the rest of
the ARM community, and keeps on ramping up the speed every year.  So could they do the same with the
AMD x86 CPUs?  Yes and no.

First, AMD's market cap is less than $6 billion.  Not cheap, but not a stretch at all.  Apple could easily buy AMD.
Second,  Apple evidently has the hardware expertise to create a custom x86 architecture optimized for macOS.
Third, Apple could and would lower their long-term CPU costs by not paying low-volume Intel boutique prices.
(And reducing complexity of the instruction set on silicon could mean smaller dies and lower material costs.)

But, fourth, there will always be the issue of legacy "Pro" apps (and Windows-on-Mac.)  Cut out too many of the bizarre,
legacy instructions on the custom silicon and those apps won't run any more.  Sure, macOS and its apps are RISC-based,
but Adobe and Microsoft apps are not.  We have to assume that those apps can and will use any of the freaky instructions that
Intel's compilers provide.  So Apple would be stuck with stamping out CPUs that support the full x86 architecture.
The only advantage would be avoiding low-volume boutique Intel pricing.

Pros: vertical integration for lower CPU cost.
Cons: same as for #2 (losing Pro users, pissing off all other users).
Net: too much work for such a small benefit in a legacy market.

So yeah.  Maybe the current Intel relationship is the least terrible option.
Let the legacy Mac market taper off naturally instead of trying to inject ARM technology into it.
Don't bother trying to lower component costs by buying ARM and making custom chips for Mac.

jdw said:

The main problem in the United States is apathy and unwillingness to fight back on the part of WE THE PEOPLE. How so? The US Government is little more than a creation of the people. When you vote party line Democrat or party line Republican in each election, you contribute to the status quo, which is no fight at all, despite the superficial tensions between the two parties. When elected, members of the House and Senate, whether Republican or Democrat, tend to act similarly on many key issues, especially those which they and the Justice Department contend are in the interests of "NATIONAL SECURITY." The problem is that when we have fraidy-cat voters, they believe everything is a threat and therefore they tend to do very little about protecting their individual liberty. Their apathy screams, "Go ahead and take my liberty, so long as you keep me safe!" So many people seem content to sell their very souls to Satan if it would give them an appearance of greater security, but in the end they find it a raw deal -- it is no guarantee of security at all. As such, every American should perpetually rise up to fight those in government who demand secrecy in the name of security. Apple, Microsoft and all the tech firms listed deserve the utmost praise for their courage and willingness to act.

hucom2000 said:

Apple will only start to pay "proper" taxes in the US, if these tax heavens are eliminated. That's what the European Union is after. It just happens to be Apple (a US company) and it happens to be on a massive scale. Remember the billions in fines the Swiss banks had to pay in the US for tax evasion? It's all about trying to keep countries from gaining unfair advantages over other countries. The same way Switzerland had built it's financial system on bank secrecy, Ireland built it's economy on luring international companies with insanely low tax rates. It's not really about Apple or the US, this is about Ireland playing by the rules. Just like Switzerland a few years ago, Ireland is now paying the price for it's actions. And the companies that went along with it get punished. So they should. They knew all along that 1) it's not right, and 2) at some point it would come to light.