linuxplatform

mpantone said:

My guess is that Microsoft hit the pause button after having second thoughts about bolting on a half-baked 64-bit Windows fork onto what appears to be a touchscreen netbook to compete against the next generation Apple desktop operating system and the mature iPadOS.

Microsoft does not have the luxury of screwing this one up otherwise they'll end up with another Windows Mobile debacle. They already conceded the paradigm shifting smartphone market.

It would be great for someone to come up with a competitive alternative to Apple's offerings but Microsoft can't put out something that is appears to be three years behind to the marketplace. In fact, the points that it is running 64-bit and on ARM instruction CPUs isn't all that important to Joe Consumer. It just needs to perform well.

That guess is wrong. This may come as a shock to you but Microsoft is the dominant force in PC computing. They are not in a position to where they have to respond to anything that Apple does until Apple's marketshare like triples. It would be great for someone to come up with a competitive alternative to Apple's offerings ... let me state this again. Microsoft has 90% of the market. Because of software compatibility and other issues, they have no reason to believe that ARM-based Macs are going to lead to this massive shift. Apple designing its own desktop chips is a huge deal to the Apple fandom but outside of that nobody cares, just like most people really don't care about Intel vs AMD on the Intel side.

killroy said:

Oh Intel, where is thy sting?

First of all this is very insensitive to religious people. Second, I do not understand how Intel - who worked hard to maintain a great relationship with Apple, provided outstanding driver support and never got involved in lawsuits or IP concerns with Apple as tons of other Apple suppliers do - is now regarded as "the enemy" whose demise Apple fans are rooting for. I can get the animus against Microsoft, Google, Samsung and Qualcomm. While I disagree with it I at least GET it. But Intel has done NOTHING but be as good a partner to Apple as they were capable of. Stuff like this is why so many people hate Apple fans with a passion.

After all, suppose Windows does switch to ARM causing Intel to fall flat on its face. Who benefits? Qualcomm. (You folks weren't thinking that Apple is going to sell its ARM chips to the likes of Dell or Lenovo to make Windows PCs to compete with Apple ones and do so at generally lower prices did you?) Did anyone think of that? Qualcomm will become the primary manufacturer of both mobile devices that have 85% market share against AND and servers/PCs that have 93% market share against macOS. And Qualcomm - unlike Intel - HAS gotten into plenty of conflicts with Apple over IP and lawsuits over the years. Since Qualcomm buys chips in much bigger volume than Apple ever will - again see market share - what on earth will happen if Qualcomm decides to buy up as much of TSMC's capacity as possible in order to delay their #1 competitor's pipeline? (This isn't theory ... Qualcomm HAS done this very thing before AND MORE THAN ONCE.)

Third, Samsung entered 3nm risk testing this year and will produce the world's first 3nm chips next year. It will be their own Exynos chips, likely the ones used in the international version of the Galaxy Note 30. It will not be ready in time for the Galaxy S30, as their new 5nm chip will be used instead, as well as in international versions of the Galaxy Note 20. So Samsung is going to beat Apple getting to 3 nm by 1 year.

Qualcomm will introduce their own 5nm chips with integrated 5G modems next year, the 875, a few months after Apple launches their own 5nm A14. Rumor has it that they are going to charge $100 more than the 865 and people are not pleased. While previously Qualcomm's chips were made by TSMC, their 5nm chips will be made by Samsung. Who knows when Qualcomm will reach 3nm as - unlike Samsung - they likely don't have a design ready yet.

Finally Intel states that they will reach 3nm by 2025. AMD will reach 3nm - using TSMC's foundries - around 2023. However, Intel's transistor design is denser, so a 3nm AMD chip is roughly equivalent to a 5nm Intel chip, a 5 nm AMD chip equal to a 7nm Intel chip and so forth. Thanks to the work of Bill Keller, who got Intel past their road block, Intel will release their first 7nm chip later this year, and that is when all the people who are crowing "AMD has surpassed Intel!" will basically be silenced. And yes, Intel's 7nm chips will add performance and efficiency to their already considered "best available" desktop, workstation and server i7, i9 and Xeon chips. So, Intel is going to be releasing new chip generations on a smaller process every 2 years just like Apple and everyone else. 

Bottom line: Intel isn't going anywhere. Even if Apple Silicon beats them - which I still sincerely doubt but I will concede that point to those who feel otherwise - the performance and efficiency improvements are going to make the gap between Macs and Windows machines more than close enough for Lenovo, Dell, HP, Acer and Asus to continue to use them rather than try to find a better performing ARM replacement than Qualcomm (which currently does not exist and there are none on the horizon) and in the process of being stuck with Qualcomm chips that already are no better than half as powerful as Apple Silicon but will have to run most applications in emulation. 

Now what WILL happen is a shift from Intel to ARM for CHROMEBOOKS. The only reason why it happened yet is Oracle's copyright lawsuit against Google. That FINALLY ends in October. Shortly after Google will certify ChromeOS Linux for Qualcomm and Exynos - and likely take it out of beta also - which means we will see Exynos-based Chromebooks from Samsung and a raft of Qualcomm-based Chromebooks from Lenovo, HP, Acer, Asus and possibly even one from LG (who doesn't make many Chromebooks) though likely not Dell (who is an x86-64 loyalist and also doesn't make many Chromebooks) in 2021. But even there, the only reason why this will happen is because ChromeOS on ARM performs similarly to ChromeOS on Intel and there are no app compatibility issues (if anything Android apps run better on the ARM-based Chromebooks than the x86-64 ones, and most of the main Linux applications were ported to ARM ages ago, which is why Apple is encouraging Windows bootcamp and virtualization users to switch to Linux instead for Apple Silicon). But because ChromeOS is more of a tablet OS akin to iPadOS than a desktop/workstation/server OS akin to macOS, Windows and Ubuntu, the Chromebooks will only cost Intel sales of devices in the Celeron, i3 and i5 range. It won't affect Intel's i7, i9 or Xeon business at all.

auxio said:

linuxplatform said:

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.  

I guess if you ignore the fact that they're using that EXACT strategy for pricing and positioning the different models of iPhones and iPads in the market

And I guess you are doing your level best to ignore my main argument. Mobile is not PC. Apple dominates mindshare and profit in mobile. In PC, they are basically a bit above Acer. Switching from Intel to ARM won't change that because Apple PCs will still cost twice and much and will still not be able to run most software that can run on Windows. You use Macs so their pricing and software issues don't affect you. They DO affect people who use and rely on the Windows platforms, both consumers and enterprises.

There isn't a single app that truly matters that runs on a Samsung smartphone or tablet that won't run on the iPhone SE 2 or the base iPad. Not the case in the Windows world and you know it.

blastdoor said:

linuxplatform said:

Apple Silicon plus macOS, Swift, Metal, and the rest of the stack now provides the most solid and technically advanced (relative to the rest of the industry) foundation in the history of the Mac. The last time the Mac, as an integrated hardware-software platform, was this advanced relative to the rest of the industry might have been when the Mac IIci was introduced. 

I can't believe that Apple would have spent so much time and money investing in this strong foundation to just punt on the software that runs on this platform. I anticipate that we are going to see a commitment to building out the app ecosystem on the Mac in a way that we haven't seen in decades. I'm very excited by what Apple Silicon means for the Mac!

"Apple Silicon plus macOS, Swift, Metal and the rest of the stack now provides the most solid and technically advanced (relative to the rest of the industry) foundation in the history of the Mac."

Even if that is true, it doesn't matter as much as you think because of the price of Apple hardware and the general unavailability of most of Windows software on a Mac. As I have said before, you guys are looking at this all wrong. You are thinking: "this makes me more excited than ever to be a Mac owner!" As well it should. But that isn't the issue. The real issue is: "why does this make me - as a Windows user - any more likely to buy a Mac than I was before?"

For you, who loves the Apple ecosystem, the Mac being on the same hardware/software platform as the iPad and iPhone is outstanding. But if you don't own an iPhone (15% market share) or iPad (35% market share) in the first place ... or if you own an iPhone/iPad but also have a Windows computer (as most do!) then why do you care? You don't. You only care about how much your device costs and whether it runs what you want it to run as you did before.

As far as punting on the software that runs on the platform ... when has Apple ever been a software company? They aren't. They are a hardware company. They get involved in software only inasmuch as the competition forces them to. You can basically say that software is to Apple what hardware is to Google. 

Also, I can answer your question. Apple doesn't care about competing with Wintel as much as you think. (If they did, it would be a crushing loss. At no time have Macs ever had more than 15% market share, and at times it has been less than 3% market share. More Chromebooks sell than Macs.) Apple cares more about platform convergence. Unifying iOS,iPadOS, macOS, watchOS, tvOS and HomeKit. Instead of chasing the people who don't use their products, giving the people who do use their products the best possible experience and performance. People who use Windows (and to a lesser extent Android, ChromeOS and Linux) will be irrelevant. But people who use Apple hardware will be VERY satisfied and much less likely to jump ship.

Apple and Wintel will diverge. The hardware will diverge further. The software will diverge. Apple people will become totally different from Windows people. They may even work in different industries, as you literally may not be able to do the work in an Apple shop on a Wintel machine and vice versa. And Apple is totally fine if that happens.

SpamSandwich said:

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.