linuxplatform
About
- Username
- linuxplatform
- Joined
- Visits
- 11
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 539
- Badges
- 0
- Posts
- 124
Reactions
-
Apple Silicon MacBook Pro migration starting in late 2020, new model in late 2021 says Kuo...
commentzilla said:mariowinco said:Apple will lower the price of 100usd (or aligned to whatever is the trend on PC market) and advertise how much more powerful than INTEL based are the Apple Silicon based machines. Margins will increase and so shareholder value.
The 10th gen i3 is in both the MacBook Air and HP Pavilion x360 2-in-1. Despite the only real advantage the HP enjoys over the MBA being the Retina screen AND HP needing to pay for Windows where Apple gets their OS for free, the MBA literally costs twice as much. Switch to machines that cost the same as the entry level MacBook Air and you will see devices - again name brands like Dell, HP, Lenovo etc. - offering 10th gen Intel i7s with either 16 GB of RAM or Nvidia graphics card with 8 GB of RAM. Realize that this is hundreds less than what Apple charges for their REFURBISHED Intel i5 machines.
Were you guys honestly thinking that Intel charges like $500-$1000 or something for their CPUs? If so, to what did you attribute Dell, HP, Lenovo and the rest selling computers with comparable specs for half the cost (or less)? Again, note that it isn't Apple who is claiming that switching to Apple Silicon will lower the cost of devices. It is Apple consumers who believe that unless it is made by Apple it will crash every other day until it becomes a doorstop after 9 months. (Yes, lots of alleged "tech writers" fall into this category, which is why some of them bizarrely believe that Apple Silicon will mean cheaper MacBook Airs too. Despite being "tech writers" they have never gone to a local electronics store and seen just how cheap the Intel i3 is OFF THE SHELF TO CONSUMERS). -
Apple Silicon MacBook Pro migration starting in late 2020, new model in late 2021 says Kuo...
StrangeDays said:You are aware that Apple probably pays only $50 - if that - for the Intel i3 that goes into the $1000 MacBook Air. I don't know where the idea that Apple is going to save all this money by using their own chips comes from.
Now my point IS NOT to rehash the Apple versus Windows versus Android pricing wars. I am just pointing out that if people think that Intel has been ripping off Apple all these years for some bizarre reason and that Apple is going to be able to make cheaper Macs that will increase market share as a result etc. yeah that isn't true at all. I am willing to consider the possibility that Apple Silicon will be cheaper than Intel i7 and i9 chips. An i9 10th gen runs about $450 retail so let's say that Intel charges Apple maybe half that. (In reality, it is probably 1/3 or less but let's give Apple the benefit of the doubt.) But first we are going to have to see if Apple's ARM SOCs can have similar performance given the same type of real workloads - by this I mean engineering, programming, scientific etc. applications and not merely the Final Cut Pro X and Adobe stuff - that the Mac Pros and top of the line Macbook Pros are currently doing with Intel chips. -
Apple Silicon MacBook Pro migration starting in late 2020, new model in late 2021 says Kuo...
GeorgeBMac said:Interesting that he forecasts lower prices from higher volumes.A big part of the cost of any product are fixed and semi-fixed costs (costs that only vary with wide swings in volume such as when you start laying off white collar workers). And those fixed and semi-fixed costs are a major part of the cost of any Mac (they include the cost of OS, software and Apple's ecosystem).So, although those fixed and semi-fixed costs allocated down to a unit basis are critical to pricing strategies, volume is usually the weakest part of any forecast. So, predicting an increase in volume on a major switch to a new technology isolated from the industry is gutsy at best.For example, let's assume the following:Total Macs sold: 5 millionVariable cost to manufacture: 5M x $600 = $3,000MFixed & semi-fixed costs: $3,000MCost per mac: ($3,000m + $3,000M) / 5M = $1,200Now, assuming variable costs go down and volume increases:Total Macs sold: 6 millionVariable cost to manufacture: 5M x $500 = $2,500MFixed & semi-fixed costs: $3,000MCost per mac: ($2,500m + $3,000M) / 6M = $900In this hypothetical example volume played a far bigger role in the price of a Mac than did a decrease in its variable (manufacturing) costs.But, only Apple's internal cost accountants have any idea what the breakdown in costs are. But, even knowing that, volume projections are always speculative. Ya just don't know....In fact, volume could decrease for two reasons:1) People may fear a new technology that could block them from doing what they need and want to do and may hold off making a purchase,2) The market may have already been saturated with a massive increase in computer sales as a result of stay at home orders from the virus. Essentially, every kid who ever had a shot at getting a Mac already has one -- and the same for many adults. -
App Store nearly doubles Google Play revenues across COVID-19 lockdown
This is unreal. So ... by Google Play not making as much money as does the App Store, it makes Google Play a failure? I am going to state it explicitly - in what universe is grossing $17.3 billion in gross revenue in a single quarter a failure? Let me tell you: not this one. Because the App Store's revenue for the entirety of 2013 was $10 billion. (It was roughly estimated to be $5 billion the previous year). 2014? $15 billion. So, making more money on apps in a single quarter than Apple did the year it launched the iPhone 6 - its top selling phone in history - is failure?
Let us put it another way: Apple's entire Mac division "only" made $25.7 billion last year. Google Play meanwhile made $29 billion. So forget moving to ARM, Apple should stop making computers altogether, right?
But wait, there is more. iPad revenue: $21.3 billion. Everything else combined except services? $24.5 billion. Since those didn't make what massive epic failing Google Play pulled in last year, Apple should drop them. Right?
Look folks. Stop viewing the world through the lenses of DED, who only RECENTLY stopped claiming that Android was a massive money losing failure for everyone but Samsung that Google was going to abandon any day now. Google is making more on apps alone right now than Apple did as an entire company the year before they introduced the iPhone. Seriously what is wrong with you folks? -
Apple buys rights to Sundance documentary 'Boys State' for $10M
SpamSandwich said:Not expecting much from this show in terms of fairness from a collection of Left-leaning financiers and cheerleaders. Frankly, it would be a miracle if Apple sponsored any content that was boldly aimed at the other half of the country.