cloudmobile

applesauce007 said:

vonbrick said:

sog35 said:

Surface is such an overhyped BLAH product line

After iOS 11 is released, PC/Desktop sales will really start to decline and Microsot will become just a Cloud company.
Time will tell.

Please stop. Just stop. OK? 1. An iPad Pro, especially when adding in the cost of a keyboard, will still cost more than most Windows laptops. And for paying more, you will get a smaller screen, no real mouse/trackpad support, no multiple display support and no real support for external/expandable storage, even so much as a thumb drive. 2. Let us say that Apple were to come out with iOS devices with feature/form factor/price compatibility with Windows PCs. Guess what? IT STILL RUNS iOS WHICH IS A MOBILE OPERATING SYSTEM. So you expect professionals to do real work on a mobile OS? Tell you what ... go do it yourself before you expect anyone else to do it. That's right. You go replace your MacBook Pro with an iPad as your primary home and work computing device. You wouldn't, would you? Of course not. So why on earth would you expect a Windows users to do so? Because you hate Windows, I get it. But despite your hatred, Windows is - and has been for like 30 years - a full blown consumer and professional OS that supports any task that you need a computer for, including any task that macOS - and the previous operating systems that powered Apple's hardware during the Windows run - can do for 99.9999% of users. Don't throw daggers and darts at me ... I know that there are some things that Macs can do that Windows machines cannot. But here's the deal: those are tasks that only a tiny slice of the world's billions of PC users do or need. And that slice has Macs already. Windows has a 91% market share. (That's usage as measured by % of PCs that access the web, not sales/shipments figures). All those people aren't going to hobble their productivity by replacing full blown machines - WHICH RUN THE SAME INTEL CPUS THAT YOU USE IN YOUR MACBOOKS - and operating systems that can run full blown applications and not just mobile apps just because you hate Windows. The people who keep insisting "an iPad can replace a Windows computer" prattle that nonsense simply because they have a low opinion of Windows and the people who use it. Get those people to admit that Windows PCs are used in pretty much the same way as Macs are and that nonsense will stop. All these people are going to replace their 1 TB storage Windows machines with iPads that have 64 GB of storage and don't even support thumb drives, let alone external hard drives. (It would be somewhat sensible if iOS was designed to be primarily a cloud OS like Chromebooks and Linux Cloudbook distros but they aren't. Instead, iOS is far behind operating systems created around cloud/web devices.) You go first and replace your MacBook with an iPad at your job before you force some poor accountant or business analyst to spend 8 (really 10-11) hours a day fiddling around with his 12' screen and detachable keyboard. Yes, I have seen those cool Apple promotional spots that show how great iPad Pros are for video editing and all that. But notice that you don't see them crunching numbers on some massive Excel spreadsheet do you? Or anything else that most workers actually use those horrible Windows computers that you hate so much for all day to do real work on? Of course not. Why not? Because the iPad can't handle it. Not enough device storage to hold the documents, software and data that people need for their work, and not enough RAM/CPU power to do real tasks. So iOS 11 will do the UX/UI portion of multi-tasking much better. Big deal: Chromebooks do a great job at that too. (Seriously. Try one out sometime, like at your local public school or something.) But running a spreadsheet, database and presentation at the same time while having 10 tabs open in your browser in the background? Forget it. No mobile OS can handle it, and none will be able to for the foreseeable future.

maestro64 said:

SpamSandwich said:

maestro64 said:

Typical for Intel, they waste more money jumping into things they will never be successful at. I lost count on how many businesses they shut down over the years. But the markets loves Intel's failures. Google it's possibly running a close second to all the Intel failures and Google has not been around as long.

Trust me, the market gives them no leeway. I've held Intel stock for quite a few years and it's been a dog the entire time I've held it.

That is because you bought in too late. Intel stock should have been hammered for all their mistakes. They only did well because of the whole wintel deal from the 80's. Today no one cares what processors is in their products and Intel does not like that. 

Except that "Wintel" did not really catch on until the late 90s after A) Windows 95 came out and the speed/capability of computers increased and C) the price of computers went way down. But you knew that already.

No one cares about what processors are in their products? Oh gee, maybe they should stop putting "Intel inside" stickers on computers. Feel free to ignore that Intel computers consistently outsell the AMD counterparts even though devices with AMD chips cost noticeably less. Or that customers who know even a little bit consistently prefer the i5 and i7 processor models over the i3, Bay Trail, Cherry Trail etc. models even though - again - the former costs much more. Or that Mac owners have been griping the past few years because recent Mac releases and refreshes haven't had the latest, greatest Intel processors. 

And that is with PCs. In mobile - which granted is only applicable to the Android and the Windows (while it existed) world - people absolutely care about whether the CPU was from Qualcomm, Samsung, MediaTek or Intel. No one outside of South Korea pays top dollar for an Android phone unless it has a Qualcomm 800 series chip in it. MediaTek chips get avoided like the plague for all but the cheapest devices. And virtually no one bought devices with Intel chips at all despite the devices that featured them generally being cheaper (due to Intel subsidies) and performing nearly as well as Qualcomm 600 series chips and having other advantages as coming out with 64 bit chips faster than Qualcomm and MediaTek did AND Google doing their best to promote them among consumers and suppliers, mainly because a lot of the apps were designed for ARM chips and didn't run well (or at all) on x86 architecture. So, basically, everything that you said was false. Every. Single. Thing.

Incidentally, I have no idea why all of you are so gleeful about Intel's problems anyway. Still angry at them over the Wintel days? Still fighting last year's battles I guess. More like battles from 20-30 years ago. But seriously ... if Intel folds, who makes you guys' chips for Macs? I know that a lot of you want Apple to shift macOS to the Ax series, but that is really, truly a ridiculous idea for anyone who uses Macs for real work (programming, IT, CAD, video editing etc). The Ax series has only just now reached quad core where the Intel I-7 has up to 8. Apple could go to AMD ... but AMD made plenty of Windows PCs too, and would have made more than Intel did if it were up to consumers so what's the point there ... they're as "guilty" as Wintel. So who else is out there? Nvidia? TSMC? Samsung? Qualcomm? All of them are major suppliers for Android OEMs - making them as "guilty" as Intel, especially Nvidia and Samsung who manufacture and sell their own Android devices that compete directly with Apple devices - plus they are all primarily ARM shops who lack the expertise and manufacturing scale to make CPUs who can handle high performance - or even medium performance - macOS devices.

By the way ... soon this will no longer be that big of a deal FOR MICROSOFT AND WINDOWS. They  have been working on getting Windows - both PC and server versions - to run on ARM for years. Windows 10 for ARM will debut in 2018 at the latest, and Windows 2016 Server has already been ported to ARM for cloud servers, and will in (relatively) short order be ported to ARM for regular servers. So 3 years from now, Apple will be more reliant on Intel than Microsoft. Windows professionals will be able to buy server-class ARM hardware and use them as PC workstations in CAD, gaming and other high performance purposes because they will be cheaper than Intel-based workstations that offer less performance. Don't believe me? Well, professionals who prefer Linux have been doing it for years. Ironically, Microsoft embracing ARM for Windows will increase this, as it will make Linux-based ARM hardware even cheaper and easier to find: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/03/20/microsoft_on_arm/

But hey, you keep rooting for Intel to fail just because they competed with Apple back in the 90s and 00s while totally ignoring that they are even more important to Apple now in the future - supplying CPUs for Macs and modems for iPhones and iPads - than they are to Microsoft. Intel could fold tomorrow and Microsoft would simply shift to AMD, on which its products have run for decades, while continuing to move to ARM (because Microsoft's eventual goal is to compete with Android on ARM, not compete with macOS because let's face it ... Microsoft won that war long ago as even now after an iOS-inspired boom in Mac purchases, Windows still has a 91% share of the PC market). Apple meanwhile would have to scramble to do a major technical redesign - because unlike Windows which is a general purpose OS like Android, macOS is designed only to run on Intel hardware just as iOS is only designed for Ax - as well as completely rework its supply chain.

Let go of the past. Intel's pain is not Apple's gain. Instead, the converse is true. Apple needs Intel to be strong and vital in order to be able to continue to devote the R&D into their CPUs, and be able to manufacture them at scale. The last thing that Apple needs is for Intel to be in a struggle for survival.