linuxplatform

About

Username
linuxplatform
Joined
Visits
11
Last Active
Roles
member
Points
539
Badges
0
Posts
124
  • Apple Silicon will force industry to reconsider use of Intel chips, says ex-Apple exec

    dewme said:
    I believe that Intel's fate will be entirely determined by how Intel itself executes over the next 6-24 months rather than the threat that Apple Silicon poses. 
    Apple Silicon is no threat to Intel at all. None. Again:

    1. Apple Silicon will only be used in Apple devices. Dell, HP, Lenovo etc. won't be able to buy Apple Silicon to run Windows on it.
    2. Apple devices cost twice as much as (roughly) equivalent Windows devices. That won't change. In fact, Apple Silicon may even make low end Macs more expensive because the Ax costs more than the i3 (by a lot) and the i5.
    3. Intel Macs don't run A LOT of the software that Windows users need and want. With Apple Silicon Macs, this problem will be worse, not better. And despite Apple's claims, writing apps for both Windows (which will still happen because 93% market share) and Apple will be harder, not easier. 
    4. Intel's high end chips - the i7, i9 and Xeon - already outperform the A14. Why people believe otherwise amazes me. Especially since Apple essentially acknowledges this by not even trying to build an ARM equivalent to the Mac Pro or anything else that used the i9 or Xeon.
    5. Intel finally got to 10nm and based on the work that Jim Keller did for them will get down to 7nm within the next 2 years. Their performance is about to get A LOT BETTER, and as stated above, their best chips already outperform the A14.
    6. Apple's ability to increase performance is limited. They are already at 5nm. Next is 3nm, and the first 3nm chips won't come until 2022 (Samsung currently has the only foundry capable of making them). Intel - whose 10 nm chips already outperform Apple's 5nm ones - will be down to 5nm before Apple can get to 3nm. And everything below 3nm is merely theory right now.
    7. Intel's low power/low heat chips are basically in their infancy stage. Within 2 years, Intel's low power chips will easily match the Qualcomm chips that are currently being used by ARM-based Windows computers.

    Honestly, Apple ARM computers are only going to be competing with Apple Intel computers. All other competition - including benchmarks - is only going to exist in the minds of Apple fans. The reason is that Apple and Wintel are two entirely different software ecosystems. When the switch to ARM happens, they will be two entirely different hardware ecosystems too.
    muthuk_vanalingamdysamoria
  • Apple Silicon will force industry to reconsider use of Intel chips, says ex-Apple exec

    Maybe Apple should consider taking over the CPU business and sell to PC manufacturers...
    I really hope that you are being facetious. The reason is that most Windows won't run on the Ax and neither will most Windows applications.

    Second, PC manufacturers need a range of CPUs with different specs and prices so they can make devices at all price points, from $200-$15,000. Is Apple going to come out with a $5 CPU to compete with the dual core Celerons that goes in the very low end Windows PCs and Chromebooks? Are they even going to come out with a $50 CPU to compete with the i3 that goes into $400-$500 Windows and ChromeOS laptops?

    No. They aren't. And even if they did - again - those Windows laptops wouldn't be able to run 75% of the software that they can now, including even cheap Steam video games. 

    But again,  you were kidding. Because obviously you know more about technology and economics than that.
    You don’t think Apple can enter mature markets and still destroy their competitors? Where have you been for the last 20 years?
    For goodnes sakes what on earth are you talking about? What competitor has Apple destroyed exactly?
    Sony? No.
    Microsoft? No.
    Google? No.
    Dell? No.
    HP? No.

    And note: you didn't answer my question. I asked you if Apple was going to make a range of CPUs that meet a range of price, performance and application needs. That is what Intel, AMD, Qualcomm, Samsung and MediaTEK all do and have been doing for DECADES. That is what Apple has never done at any time and there isn't a bit of evidence that they are capable of it.  
    dysamoria
  • Apple Silicon will force industry to reconsider use of Intel chips, says ex-Apple exec

    How many PC laptops were sold last year? 170 - 190 million or so? 
    And Apple maybe 15 million? 
    But Apple also sold about 50 million iPads.
    So Apple really has about 1/3 of the portable computing market share, and that is big enough to indicate that there is a truly MASS market for their products and services. It’s not a niche. There may always be a good sized market for certain niches but improving the battery life and speed of its portable products and its ability to refresh its products more frequently can only make them more attractive and sell even better IMO. 
    Those 50 million iPads can't run the software that the 170-190 million PC laptops run. Until they can, there will never be a MASS market for their products. Look guys, Apple and its fan community have been claiming "the iPad can replace most PCs because most PCs are trash and most PC users are semi-literate yokels who only use their PCs to surf the web for NASCAR results anyway" since 2010. It is not true. 

    iPads don't have the PERSONAL COMPUTING functionality that most PERSONAL COMPUTER users need. That is why NO ONE claims that an iPad can replace a MacBook Air, which until recently had a dual core processor that barely ran at 1Ghz. They only claim that it can replace Windows PCs because they dislike and do not respect Windows users.

    Even if they had the PERSONAL COMPUTING functionality, they can't run PERSONAL COMPUTING software. Indeed, even MacBook Pros can't run much of the software that Windows computers run. 

    ARM-based Macs are going to have the same basic problems that Intel-based Macs did.
    1. Cost (twice as much as Wintel PCs that have the same CPU/RAM/storage configuration)
    2. Software compatibility. It was a huge problem for power/professional users back when Wintel and Macs were on the same hardware stack and it is going to become a much bigger problem now that Mac architecture is going to resemble the iPad and Apple TV more than it resembles Wintel/WinAMD.

    Guys, you are going to need to take off the Apple-colored goggles for a second and ask yourselves: "Why do so many people buy Windows PCs instead of Macs and how will Apple adopting ARM change this?" instead of just presuming that 90% of Windows users are cheaper than dirt and not much smarter.
    muthuk_vanalingamgatorguydysamoria
  • Apple Silicon will force industry to reconsider use of Intel chips, says ex-Apple exec

    Maybe Apple should consider taking over the CPU business and sell to PC manufacturers...
    I really hope that you are being facetious. The reason is that most Windows won't run on the Ax and neither will most Windows applications.

    Second, PC manufacturers need a range of CPUs with different specs and prices so they can make devices at all price points, from $200-$15,000. Is Apple going to come out with a $5 CPU to compete with the dual core Celerons that goes in the very low end Windows PCs and Chromebooks? Are they even going to come out with a $50 CPU to compete with the i3 that goes into $400-$500 Windows and ChromeOS laptops?

    No. They aren't. And even if they did - again - those Windows laptops wouldn't be able to run 75% of the software that they can now, including even cheap Steam video games. 

    But again,  you were kidding. Because obviously you know more about technology and economics than that.
    muthuk_vanalingamelijahgargonaut
  • Apple Silicon will force industry to reconsider use of Intel chips, says ex-Apple exec

    razorpit said:
    Agree with this. Don't think Intel is going anywhere soon, but if you have stock I think now is a good time to sell. Intel is vulnerable right now.

    There's a lot of laziness and content out there right now. Apple Silicon is going to wake a few business units up at MS and Intel, at least it better for their sake.
    This isn't true at all. It doesn't solve the main reason why PC users don't buy Macs.

    1. Macs cost twice as much as Windows PCs with comparable specs. This means that ChromeOS - whose devices are cheaper than Windows ones - is a bigger threat, and ChromeOS already runs on both ARM and x86-64, even the Linux and Android apps.

    2. Macs can't run a ton of software that Windows can, including a lot of specialty and enterprise software, with gaming being a particular example. When Macs switch to ARM, this is going to get worse, not better.

    A lot of people seem to think that Apple's clout in mobile translates to PC. It doesn't. No one is going to run out and buy a MacBook that costs twice as much as a Dell and can't run the software that he needs for work or the video games that he wants to play just because it has the same processor in it that is in the iPhone and iPad (which most likely he may not own anyway because Android has an 65% market share in tablets and 80% market share overall). The people who believe this are Apple fans who own and use Apple products anyway and only deal with Windows and Android devices for review purposes. (Yes, this includes most "tech" writers, who regularly get basic stuff about non-Apple products wrong.)

    And it isn't laziness. Real tech problems that Apple doesn't have to deal with because Apple only has to support one platform isn't laziness. Apple doesn't have to worry about backwards compatibility because Apple doesn't have an enterprise software unit. Microsoft does have an enterprise software unit, it is a massive part of its business, and Microsoft can't tell those customers that they aren't going to support business applications that their customers wrote in 1997 that will never be meaningfully updated because it will cost them tons of money without generating them a bit of revenue.

    As for Intel, they make a wide range of processors - i3, i5, i7, i9, Xeon - that allows their OEMs to make devices at all price points that they need to update at the same time. It is a completely different challenge from Apple's only needing to work on a single Ax processor a year. That is the same with Qualcomm: they have multiple 2x, 4x, 6x and 7x processors a year as well as their flagship 8x. 

    The hardware and software companies that support a range of devices, platforms and price points all have a harder job than Apple. They can't do what Apple does, but based on the issues that Apple has at times, Apple can't do what they do either.
    flyingdprain22muthuk_vanalingamelijahggatorguydysamoriaargonaut