JamesBrickley

Enterprise deployments of Mac's have for the last several years been kept behind about 6 months or perhaps more due to serious compatibility problems.  Enterprise typically installs security endpoint software.  That software has kernel extensions.  Those break whenever radical changes to the OS are made.  The APFS isn't so much a problem unless you were using Institutional FileVault2 keys which no longer work in High Sierra.  Other versions of anti-virus or binary whitelisting tools cause a kernel panic on High Sierra.  An enterprise cannot move very fast and all the interdependencies are an issue.  Can't upgrade the anti-virus because the PCs use it too and the backend server console has to be upgraded.  Suddenly, that's 20,000 computers that need a client upgrade and multiple server upgrades just to support one OS out of several in a large environment.  

The new 10.13.3 MDM functionality that now requires DEP to be fully trusted by High Sierra so you can silently install secure kernel extensions without user intervention means you have to change the entire Apple management infrastructure to accommodate that new requirement.  

Windows is not immune to these things but Microsoft tends to let enterprise pull their strings and Apple doesn't  For example, Apple released Security Update 2018-001 and it's broken several things and we can't fix it until the vendors patch their software.  So it ends up being a Catch-22.  With Microsoft you can uninstall a security update.  You can't do that on macOS High Sierra.  You have to backup the Mac, the nuke and pave it and restore the data from backup.  That's a time consuming process.  Ever re-install Adobe Creative Cloud and all the Apps? Takes for freaking ever.  

All that said, Apple does appear to be locking down macOS considerably.  SIP, MDM/DEP required, T2 ARM Co-processor Secure Boot in iMac Pro.  Eventually the security will be right up there with iOS devices so there will be little need for these security end points in the first place.  The MDM will evolve and improve and Profiles will become even more enhanced.  The problems will start to just go away.

The RedBox business model is radically different.  They recruit entrepreneurs to invest, own the machines in various locations, work with the pre-provided network to collect the money and fill the disc selections and receive their cut.  To run an alternate online streaming solution requires a great deal of technical know-how and an enormous investment in data centers and bandwidth.  There are far too many other streaming rental solutions on the market. It is not easy to get your streaming client to work everywhere on everything.  The payback in the investment will require astronomical numbers in paid subscriptions.  Also, why use RedBox when there are so many other alternatives that are already working? Also if too many switch to streaming they lose their original business model and all those poor working stiffs that can't afford real broadband will be deeply disappointed and pissed off.  

RedBox works because machines are deployed in front of local retail businesses and other good locations where there is a lot of walk-up traffic.  It works as an impulse rental.  They are very successful in poor neighborhoods because of their pricing and the convenience of walking down the corner with the kids and picking out some movies for less than an ice cream cone.  They may not be the best blockbuster new releases either.  Other entrepreneur businesses that operate on a similar basis are those new robotic frozen yogurt and drink vending machines.  There is a big market for this where customers don't have credit cards, are paid cash under the table, use check cashing places, etc.  The machines are mainly placed in their neighborhoods and in front of retail shopping centers.    

Apple made the switch from PowerPC to Intel due to Performance per Watt.  The PowerPC was much more power hungry than Intel with no reduction in power usage being anticipated.  The last Mac Pro model to ship with PowerPC had a liquid cooling system because it could not compete with Intel without overclocking and running hot enough to require liquid cooling.  Intel outperformed the PowerPC CPUs and used a lot less power and even far less today.  Apple was able to transition from PowerPC to Intel because Mac OS X came from NeXT whose OpenStep OS is the foundation of today's macOS Sierra and iOS devices.  OpenStep always was cross platform across several workstation class RISC CPUs such as Alpha, SPARC, etc. as well as running on Intel.  OpenStep even had a development environment on Windows called Yellow Box which was the same on all platforms and is an ancestor to Xcode.  Sir Tim Berners-Lee invented the World Wide Web on NeXT computers and John Carmack developed Doom on NeXT computers as well.  OpenStep = mac OS High Sierra which is just an evolution of what was developed at NeXT.  The operating system developed at NeXT is Apple's secret weapon. The OS was far ahead of it's time and is still relevant today.  They ported to Intel so easily because since day one, it was running on Intel in secret.  They removed the GUI and replaced it with a touch GUI for the iPad and iPhone but under the hood it's running the same UNIX kernel and many of the same API's on the iOS devices ARM CPUs.  

Apple stripped down the ARM designs removing legacy features and optimizing for power efficiency.  The new AppleTV 4k is running an A10X ARM CPU and they don't need to worry about power efficiency because it's plugged into AC power and not a battery.  The new A11 Bionic CPU that powers the iPhone 8 and iPhone X has 6 CPU's.  Two high-speed and four efficient processors plus a custom GPU and two more CPU's tied to the machine learning engine used with FaceID.  Without the battery conservation it will give the latest MacBook Pro 13" a run for it's money.  Some benchmarks suggest it beats the MBP 13" in several areas.  That is a 10 nanometer chip design.  TRSM is working on 3-5 nanometer scale chip fabrication by 2022 in Taiwan.  The smaller the nanoscale the less power and greater the speed.  So that means ARM can eventually supplant Intel in the Performance per Watt game. (yes, Intel is at 10 nanometer and they are pursuing 7 nanometer but will it be as power efficient and will the x64 architecture be as efficient as ARM designs?).  

So yes, Apple could certainly switch to ARM CPU's for the Mac in the future. Imagine a Mac Pro with 64 CPUs or MacBook Pro's even thinner yet faster with longer battery life requiring less cooling.  A super computer in your backpack?  Yes, it is very possible in a few short years.  

Intel would need to make some radical new designs and who knows, maybe they can pull it off but right now, ARM is making some serious headway.  Intel is kinda stuck with their x64 architecture due to reliance on customers to buy their CPUs.  While Apple can custom design their ARM CPUs and make their operating systems run on whatever changes they make.  That is a very strong advantage.