linuxplatform

About

Username
linuxplatform
Joined
Visits
11
Last Active
Roles
member
Points
539
Badges
0
Posts
124
  • Apple Silicon MacBook Pro migration starting in late 2020, new model in late 2021 says Kuo...

    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.
    It makes more sense for Apple to drop the price without increasing margins to bring more switchers onboard, since their cash cow is software and services where the margins are much higher.
    Another person who thinks that Intel's CPUs cost a lot more than they do. Reality:

    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).
    muthuk_vanalingamwilliamlondon
  • Apple Silicon MacBook Pro migration starting in late 2020, new model in late 2021 says Kuo...


    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. 
    Even if that figure is true, $50 is an expensive chip component.
    It is most certainly true. You can get one retail for $130, and you KNOW that OEMs - especially Apple with their legendary negotiating prowess with suppliers - don't pay retail. And no, $50 isn't expensive at all. To put it another way, you can get the same 10th gen Intel i3 in a Dell - meaning not some cheap junk that will break in 2 years - that costs $450 and an touchscreen HP (where the only real advantage the MBA has on it is speakers and Retina display) for $500. So even if Apple was getting the CPU for free - which the A14 absolutely will not be ... do you think that it will cost LESS than the $160 that Qualcomm charges Samsung for their flagship chips? - the MBA would still cost twice as much as comparable competition.

    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.
    muthuk_vanalingamGeorgeBMacradarthekatwilliamlondon
  • Apple Silicon MacBook Pro migration starting in late 2020, new model in late 2021 says Kuo...

    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 million
    Variable cost to manufacture:   5M x $600 = $3,000M
    Fixed & semi-fixed costs:   $3,000M
    Cost per mac:   ($3,000m + $3,000M) / 5M = $1,200

    Now, assuming variable costs go down and volume increases:
    Total Macs sold:    6 million
    Variable cost to manufacture:   5M x $500 = $2,500M
    Fixed & semi-fixed costs:   $3,000M
    Cost per mac:   ($2,500m + $3,000M) / 6M = $900

    In 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.

    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. 
    dysamoriatmaydoozydozenronnwilliamlondonrazorpit
  • 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?
    avon b7muthuk_vanalingam
  • Apple buys rights to Sundance documentary 'Boys State' for $10M

    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.
    This instance you are mostly incorrect. The documentary makers did their best to tilt things their way by having only 1 of the 4 guys be (moderate) conservative and 2 very liberal, which DOES NOT fit the demographics of Texas, the reddest big state in the country. But the format of Boys State keeps it from being a DNC youth event. The kids have to create their own political parties with their own platforms that cannot resemble those of existing major parties but yet has to be ideologically coherent. https://nypost.com/2020/01/27/boys-state-is-a-sundance-documentary-youll-never-forget/ This is the key line: "The doc also wisely challenges perceptions and stereotypes of what it means to be liberal or conservative. At times, the Sundance crowd, which is — ahem — not so politically diverse, seemed to not want to be challenged."
    fastasleep