AppleSince1976

johnbear said:

Sad! grab an Intel Mac Pro while you can. ARM Macs will be inferior in performance. 

larryjw said:

We know one system that will run the Apple Silicon -- Mac Pro. That's what they were demoing the products on.

elijahg said:

canukstorm said:

elijahg said:

mjtomlin said:

Rayz2016 said:

So if only 2% of Mac users are dual booting, then it’s possible that Apple isn’t too fussed about running Windows. 

I don't think Apple gives a rats ass about the virtualization crowd... they can either buy a WIntel machine or continue using their current Mac for it. Apple's not going to hold its future roadmap hostage over this single issue.

That's my issue with the modern Apple, around macOS at least. There're so many groups of people they supposedly don't give a rat's ass about that eventually most people that use their Mac for more than a Facebook machine fall into one of those groups. There are a lot of these "single issues" that Apple shouldn't give a crap about according to forum-goers here, but all those single issues add up. I seem to be getting hit by a lot of them right now. They can stomp over their iOS user base and no one cares because iOS devices don't need much compatibility or openness, and the size of the iOS market means it's worth devs keeping up. The same can't be said for macOS. Power users on Macs don't like being shat on by the company they've supported for several decades just because it's convenient for Apple to do so. The machines are getting more and more expensive but with less and less software and hardware features. And as much as I hate to say it, Windows is nowhere near as terrible as it used to be.

I don't think Apple is trying to be all things to all people.  I could be wrong but I think the core markets for their Macs are software developers (specifically developers that develop for Apple's ecosystem), creative professionals, enterprise market.

The risk is they end up offering nothing more than a Facebook machine. Apple hates enterprise users, so that's another group they are quite happy to put in the bin. IBM are pretty much the only major company using Macs; the ridiculous debacle around FCP X (Apple arrogantly telling studios how their workflow should be) made lots of studios switch to Avid on a PC. The BBC used to be all Macs, now there're barely any. I use open source software that's essential for my job, a lot of which uses OpenGL. Apple is slowly nixing OpenGL support, and without OpenGL and without virtualisation, the open source software I use will no longer work on a Mac. And if that happens, when replacement time for my Mac comes around, I won't be replacing it with another Mac - despite being a devoted Mac user for 25 years. There will be a Windows PC sat on my desk instead.

swineone said:

I'll go on a limb here and say that part of why Apple took so long is that they're perfecting an x86 emulation layer that's going to run, if not at close to native speed, fast enough to entice users of such software to stay on the Apple ecosystem. Additionally it's going to help with sales in the first few years, while certain important apps haven't yet migrated to ARM.

Recall that Apple licensed the Rosetta layer for the PowerPC-to-Intel migration, but it was a much smaller company back then. They're huge now, and they even have their own compiler infrastructure in the form of LLVM; the expertise there might help to develop such an emulation layer.

In closing, I wager a part of the announcement is going to be an x86 emulation layer with never-seen-before performance. I guess we'll see soon enough.

auxio said:

razorpit said:

I wonder how much the recent censorship YouTube has been doing played a part in this decision?

Nah, this is all about money.  Rogan gets more with an exclusive deal and Spotify attracts more subscribers.