qwwera

racerhomie3 said:

Apple needs at least 200-250 million units of these screens a year if they were to buy these. At the bare minimum even the iPhone X in its lifespan sold 60 Million.

lorin schultz said:

qwwera said:

lorin schultz said:

qwwera said:

preclarotipo said:

I know this will sound crazy but I predict that Apple WILL NOT position the A-series as the low-end product, but instead position the A-series as the "High End" product categories.

I think it is already happening with the price of iPad Pros. I think they will retain exclusive features compared to Intel Chips, maybe these will be performance (just look at the current iPad A-series, faster than what 92% of portable computers), or battery life, or specialized application support, or maybe it will just be a spec advantage, like more Ram or thinner products. 

Now this could fail, and I could be 100% wrong about how they position the A-series as premium but I find it very hard to believe they would make a transition unless 1. The A-series is better than Intel. and if that is true then why make it a value low-profit product?? 

Agreed. And if the power is indeed better than the Intel chips, i would expect low volume niche machines like the new Mac Pro to be the test bed for these chips and both prove themselves and scale to consumers via that model. 

Except pro level machines rely on pro level software, typically from large, slow moving sources. What’s the point of a super fast workstation if I can’t run Pro Tools on it?

As with the switch to Intel, you deal with it and move on. What was the option? Stay with the Power PC chips to avoid upsetting people short term or work towards the future. Companies die when they can’t make the change.

ericthehalfbee said:

lorin schultz said:

qwwera said:

preclarotipo said:

I know this will sound crazy but I predict that Apple WILL NOT position the A-series as the low-end product, but instead position the A-series as the "High End" product categories.

I think it is already happening with the price of iPad Pros. I think they will retain exclusive features compared to Intel Chips, maybe these will be performance (just look at the current iPad A-series, faster than what 92% of portable computers), or battery life, or specialized application support, or maybe it will just be a spec advantage, like more Ram or thinner products. 

Now this could fail, and I could be 100% wrong about how they position the A-series as premium but I find it very hard to believe they would make a transition unless 1. The A-series is better than Intel. and if that is true then why make it a value low-profit product?? 

Agreed. And if the power is indeed better than the Intel chips, i would expect low volume niche machines like the new Mac Pro to be the test bed for these chips and both prove themselves and scale to consumers via that model. 

Except pro level machines rely on pro level software, typically from large, slow moving sources. What’s the point of a super fast workstation if I can’t run Pro Tools on it?

Large, slow moving sources? Like Nokia, Ericsson, Palm and BlackBerry who were too slow to adapt when the iPhone came out?

longfang said:

DAalseth said:

Microsoft has Windows on ARM now, with a 32-bit software compatibility layer, so virtualization or even Windows on top of one of these new machines isn't out of the question

One thing that nobody is talking about though is compatibility with Intel software. Sure Windows and some software will run on A series chips. But what about the Mac software that is coded to run on Intel? Are they going to run a Blue Box/Yellow Box strategy for a while? It took years before all critical software was ported from PPC to Intel. Some never was and there were a fair number of people who  refused to update their OS for years after Apple dropped Rosetta, because they did not dare lose the old software they depended on. Any idea what Apple is going to do for them?

Move on or get left behind. The backwards compatibility at the expense of moving forward is a Microsoft thing that resulted in the mess that is the Windows world.

Apparently I wasn't clear.

The argument was that Apple should begin the transition to ARM with it's professional line. I'm saying I disagree.

• Buyers of Apple's pro computers use software from vendors who are not going to quickly release an ARM version of their wares.
• If there's no ARM version of the software I use to make my living, there's no reason for me to buy an ARM-based Mac. I'll either stay with what I have or switch to Windows.
• That will hurt sales of new Macs. Users won't be left behind, Apple will.

There's no point in Apple producing a machine its intended market won't buy, hence it may not be a good idea for Apple to start the move to ARM at the high end. Users of entry level machines are less likely to be inextricably attached to specific systems and titles in which they have a sizeable investment. Thus I think the low end is a safer place to begin the switch.

lorin schultz said:

qwwera said:

preclarotipo said:

I know this will sound crazy but I predict that Apple WILL NOT position the A-series as the low-end product, but instead position the A-series as the "High End" product categories.

I think it is already happening with the price of iPad Pros. I think they will retain exclusive features compared to Intel Chips, maybe these will be performance (just look at the current iPad A-series, faster than what 92% of portable computers), or battery life, or specialized application support, or maybe it will just be a spec advantage, like more Ram or thinner products. 

Now this could fail, and I could be 100% wrong about how they position the A-series as premium but I find it very hard to believe they would make a transition unless 1. The A-series is better than Intel. and if that is true then why make it a value low-profit product?? 

Agreed. And if the power is indeed better than the Intel chips, i would expect low volume niche machines like the new Mac Pro to be the test bed for these chips and both prove themselves and scale to consumers via that model. 

Except pro level machines rely on pro level software, typically from large, slow moving sources. What’s the point of a super fast workstation if I can’t run Pro Tools on it?