tmay

GeorgeBMac said:

tmay said:

GeorgeBMac said:

tmay said:

GeorgeBMac said:

zimmermann said:

All Microsoft has to do is make Office and Teams run on those machines. And Their CRM. Who needs Windows but to run applications? If these applications run as well on iOS, I would say Windows is not necessary.

If your school or company wants you to run an application that does not function on your ARM based Mac you have 2 options:

Either:   Quit

Or:  Buy a Windows machine.

This is an untenable situation for Microsoft, Apple and their customers.   It needs to be resolved.

Like it or not, we live in a world of Windows

Apple standing back with their arms folded over their chests and pouting that it's Microsoft's problem is petty and juvenile and does neither their customers nor their stockholders any good.  It also could irreparably the MacBook line as it gets squeezed between powerful, laptop capable iPads and Windows laptops.

Microsoft must also step up to the plate.   Not only is history on the side of them swallowing their pride and working with Apple (at least when Gates was running things) but, ARM based processors will only be growing in prevalence and popularity.   It is in Microsoft's best interests to flesh out the ARM based version of their OS and make it available for retail purchase.  They need to make it the equivalent of their Intel version rather than a weak sibling.

If each does their part, we all win.  

Why is it Apple's problem to make Windows accessible on the M series Mac's?...

Because everybody benefits:   Apple, Microsoft as well as the customers of both Apple and Microsoft.  Apparently Apple is washing their hands of it saying "Not my problem".

Do they HAVE to?   No, of course not.   But it's silly of them not to help, support and encourage Microsoft to port their OS to Macs.   Again.
Bill and Steve knew that working together benefited everybody.   Hopefully, their wisdom has not been lost.

My friend was ready to buy a MacBook Air -- until I told her that it could never run Windows.   She immediately eliminated Macs from consideration.  

She loses and Apple loses.  

First of all, you don't know that the M1 MacBook Air will never run Windows.

Nonetheless, your friend's dilemma isn't Apple's problem, and frankly, Apple's ecosystem will soon be entirely ARM computing going forward, and that is a disruption, not a disadvantage, in the marketplace.

x86 should have been deprecated a decade ago. Now it's just a legacy operating system, dominate as it is, showing its old age. Apple putting any effort in keeping x86 on life support has little to no benefit.

"First of all" Apple is doing nothing to enable Windows to run on Macs.   As I said, they washed their hands of it and dumped it all on Microsoft.

And my friend's issue is very much Apple's problem because they lost her as a customer because of their own poor decisions.  

If the Mac line wants to continue to exist in the market place it has to attract customers -- not push them away.

Currently Windows 10 can go head to head with MacOS -- so Macs are facing competition from both low cost and high end Windows machines.

Plus, Macs will increasingly be facing competition from iPads with external keyboards and trackpads -- they are essentially 2 in 1's which the Macs cannot match.

Right now the only advantage of a silicon Mac is speed.   But, as many have complained about 5G -- who needs that increased speed?   Not my friend.   But she is not willing to do without Windows.

Currently Windows 10 can go head to head with MacOS -- so Macs are facing competition from both low cost and high end Windows machines.

cloudguy said:

All right. I will eat crow. I have long claimed that there was no way that Apple Silicon would match the Core i7 at launch and would probably be in line with the Core i3 or at best Core i5. I was wrong. I shall go sit in the corner with my dunce cap on now. 

But while on my way to the corner I will protest:

Apple did not reach this performance with the 4 and 6 core iPhone and iPad chips as people were claiming previously. Apple only reached this performance with an octacore chip that was specifically designed for use in personal computers - not mobile devices - that requires more cores, more power and dissipate more heat. We have always known that this was possible, as modern (meaning a ARM Holdings design base and not the Sun Sparc and other early RISC servers that go back to the 1980s) Linux-based ARM workstations and servers have existed since at least 2011 (the year after the A4 was released). Ubuntu has had official ARM releases since 2012, and HP - the venerable Wintel manufacturer - has been selling them to data centers since 2014. 

So I was absolutely right about Apple not being able to build a MacBook Pro or iMac with a 6 core chip that had 128kb/8MB caches (the M1 is octacore with 192kb/12MB caches). As lots of people on this site and elsewhere were indeed claiming that the 4 and 6 core low power/low heat iPhone chips could absolutely be put in a MacBook Pro and work as good or better ... yeah those people were as wrong as I was and even more so. 

Now in the corner of shame I go, sucking my thumb in the process. But you folks who claimed that this would have been possible with the iPhone chips need to go to corners of their own.

lkrupp said:

For a long time the mantra for companies was to emulate “The Toyota Way.” Toyota’s business model, management structure, and manufacturing methods were touted as the best in the world. To succeed you had to be like Toyota.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Toyota_Way

Companies are now starting to look to the “Apple Way” as a model for success. And with good reason.

avon b7 said:

wood1208 said:

Qualcomm planned carefully to release X60 right after Apple's iPhone 12 design schedule was locked in and changing that could delay iPhone 12 release into 2021. Well played Qualcomm!!

This isn't correct. The X60 roll out was planned long before Apple even signed on with them. 

Qualcomm stated that the X60 would be available 'at the very earliest' by the end of this year. That has never changed.

There was an extremely slim chance that Apple would get some kind of prererential access to it as part of the 'kiss and make up' deal, which itself was part of a race against the clock effort to get any kind of 5G modem into an iPhone this year because Intel failed at delivering the goods.

It is supremely unfortunate, but not unexpected, that Apple may have ended up with last year's hardware on this year's phone's. Especially as the X60 will be shipping on competing phones within weeks.

But from Apple's perspective, having 5G now is a win.

And it's is perhaps ironic that this news appears on the very same day that Huawei is likely to launch the world's first 5nm on-SoC 5G modem.