knowitall

But that leads onto what markets love so much: YoY.

If unit sales remain flat with some of the current headwinds, how will Apple's iPhone business be interpreted in terms of YoY revenue growth?

And what would happen if sales end up less than flat? Is that not a realistic possibility?

randominternetperson said:

OutdoorAppDeveloper said:

If this were the only shortcoming of the new iPads there would be reason to get upset. As it stands, Apple's walled garden has shut out the iPad Pro from the pro market. iOS is seen as a toy operating system. It makes it impossible to do so many things that pros need to do like manage thousands of files or compile code or manage a network or ...

Huh.

https://venturebeat.com/2018/09/24/salesforce-brings-mobile-sdk-to-ios-for-iphone-and-ipad-enterprise-apps/
https://www.ibm.com/mobile/mobilefirst-for-ios

linkman said:

Intel is running up against the fact that wavelengths of light can get only so short (10 nm is pretty stinking short) and physics is going to win at attempts to get much smaller. A transistor can't get smaller than an atom. Progress on ICs is getting slower and will need some sort of breakthrough (like power reduction, using neural-type processing, memristors, light instead of electricity, etc.) before we can see performance improvement rates that we've experienced over the last 40 years.

mdriftmeyer said:

As a NeXT/Apple alum you folks are blatantly ignorant of the meaning of Fat Binary. Fat binaries were the binaries of NeXTSTEP/Openstep that were built binaries of the OS to run natively on different hardware architectures instruction sets.

 Apple continues working on shoring up the custom ARM based CPUs of its own design and still licenses the IP in order to produce them has nothing to do with leaving macOS to fend for itself on ARM based only instruction sets.

More importantly, the effort to create OS X even with decades of x86/PPC/Moto/SPARC expertise took 5 years to get a limped version out the door, and that was already with a platform native on x86. The Rosetta was a compatibility layer on top of it.

 The logical solution moving forward is for Apple to license IP from AMD to have them build custom ASIC designs of SoC APUs and use their discrete CPUs/GPUs with the upcoming Thunderbolt licensing [now royalty free] to have a custom Thunderbolt controller designed by Apple on their boards, that are compatible with AMD's x86 chipsets, thus freeing Apple from relying solely on Intel.