AppleSince1976

Peza said:

I do believe Craig said in cases it will take a ‘few days’, hardly clicking a button is it.

foregoneconclusion said:

larryjw said:

The issue is going to be how many of Apple Silicon systems will Apple sell? 

The graph that they showed in the presentation would be a solid selling point: desktop class performance with laptop class power consumption. 

foregoneconclusion said:

larryjw said:

The issue is going to be how many of Apple Silicon systems will Apple sell? 

The graph that they showed in the presentation would be a solid selling point: desktop class performance with laptop class power consumption. 

GeorgeBMac said:

eriamjh said:

dysamoria said:

So, as predicted, these new machines will cost customers more, too. No surprise.

Kuo didn’t say that.  He said it would cost Apple more.  If you assume Apple passes this cost to the customer immediately, prices may go up.  Although, it is a reasonable assumption.  

This headline is a bit misleading.  Of course, new models and new tooling cost more than reusing similar designs.  That’s the very nature of any new design.   Obviously, the added costs of the transition are taken into account by Apple. 

I dont see anything non-obvious or materially relevant in this article.   Just comments about what is normal.  

Also, the costs of Intel processors are reduced due to their very high volume -- covering almost every personal computer these days.

Macs are only a small part of that market.   And, even iPhones are a small part of the smart phone market.   So, it is reasonable that the cost per unit of an Apple Chip will be higher than that of an equivalent Intel chip.

EsquireCats said:

In terms of performance I find that people are being too myopic here - the Mac is no longer required to follow the traditional concept of a powerful general processing unit tied to an array of secondary specialised hardware. Instead you are more likely to see an approach that mirrors the iPad, with the central processor taking on wide fields of specialised processing functions that Apple tailor to their device function. This is why you can put an iPhone next to a Qualcomm based device and the iPhone will smoke it, benchmarks will need to be redesigned for end-use speed, not just crunching numbers in a bunch of different scenarios.

jumpcutter said:

Of course, the new Apple Silicon computers will cost more! The Intel prices are pretty high but Apple had pay Intel for the processors! Apple pays a license fee to ARM in Japan and pays TSMC to build the chips! It will be more expensive despite everybody dreaming of lower costs! Apple wants everything proprietary and hence perceived control but I believe that will hurt them like it hurt Sony years ago! 

Xed said:

longfang said:

beng said:

So, will Rosetta 2 run 32 bit apps?

Why would it when current OSX doesn’t.

Now that they have Rosetta 2 it better support 16-bit Motorola processors, too!