cloudguy

All right folks. The people who claimed that getting rid of the "Intel tax" was going to result in MacBooks costing up to $300 less, where are you? Exactly. Intel never did charge Apple very much for the same Core i3 and Core i5 processors that were in Windows and ChromeOS machines that cost half as much. An Acer Nitro 5 is actually better than an entry level MacBook Pro because it contains a 4 GB dedicated graphics card - you can choose between AMD and Nvidia - and starts for under $700. Granted it doesn't have the "light thin premium" build of the MacBook Pro - the thing is thick and heavy and even the keys are massive (though the latter is by choice because lots of gamers prefer to use the keyboard as opposed to the controller) but it is still sufficient evidence that the Intel CPU never cost Apple that much. 

"Apple claims it gives the highest performance per watt possible, and delivers the same performance as a dual-core Intel-based MacBook Air."

That is 1.1 GHz. 

elijahg said:

Yet again several problems with Apple's approach on this. 

1) Why did Apple make a mistake and threaten the developer?
2) Why did the developer not get a proper justification and citing of the specific rule violated?
3) Why is it some apps are fine for years but then all of a sudden are violating a rule, even if the rules haven't changed?
4) Why is Apple  not being especially careful considering the antitrust investiv

If the rules weren't so overly complex and in many cases vague, maybe the App Store reviewers wouldn't keep making mistakes. Though I'm sure at times Apple just doesn't like what an app is doing, even if it's not explicitly breaking a rule. So they use a vague rule as a reason to remove it. They really need to stop being so blazé with the enforcement, this is literally someone's livelihood they're destroying at the click of a button. Each of these cases only strengthens the antitrust investigations into Apple, and increases the likelihood Apple will be forced to allow third party app stores. One step in the right direction is the ability to challenge the rules, however.

As you can tell from my comment history, I am not a typical Apple defender and I refuse to use their iOS, iPadOS and tvOS devices (as opposed to their macOS and headphone devices that I love) precisely because they don't provide Linux command line and other power user features like this. (Android, Linux and ChromeOS meet that need for me ... as does macOS.) That being said ...

I wish Apple defenders would cut them some slack here. It would be one thing if we were talking about companies whose real goal is to force Apple to allow their app store - Epic Games - or have questionable business models in this tech era - Spotify - or are simply upset because they put all their eggs the iOS development basket instead of embracing a multiplatform approach 10 years ago because iOS was where all the cool kids who got invited to the interesting parties were ... only to now find out that making a living on iOS among all the cutthroat competition is actually harder than it was on Windows 15 years ago (everybody else). I can understand their gripes, even if I disagree with them, in some cases vehemently. But what I am curious about is why are Apple defenders taking their side?

Apple defenders are the ones who should know how difficult it is managing a global app store with millions of apps and doing so in a manner where security and privacy are the main goals as opposed to maximum platform openness and flexibility. I care about openness and flexibility and am willing to take personal responsibility for my own security and privacy issues. That is why I prefer Android and ChromeOS. But for a controlled platform that makes privacy and security their main concerns, do you have any idea how big a problem terminal and shell applications can be? If you don't, go poke around a couple of security blogs. You would find tons of potential issues in less than an hour even if you know absolutely nothing about network, operating system or application security. If these people want to create terminal apps, then by all means submit them to the ChromeOS, Android, Windows 10, Ubuntu and Fedora app stores. So long as their apps don't contain malware payloads or improperly escalate privileges, they will have free reigns on those open platforms. But if you are going to submit a terminal app or anything like it on iOS or any other platform that prioritizes security then you are going to absolutely, positively, justifiably expect the app reviewers to subject your app to double, triple, quadruple scrutiny. 

If you want an app store more like Android then for goodness sakes then please just buy an Android device. Some pretty decent Samsung tablets are on sale for Black Friday as we speak and the most successful ChromeOS device in history also has the Google Play Android app store and is on sale right now too. Otherwise, give Apple the freedom to run their app store as they see fit because right now they are the only real "security and privacy" game in town, and even though it isn't what I personally want for my products, I want that option to remain on the marketplace for those who do want and need it.

Xed said:

k2kw said:

blastdoor said:

The title is about the future, the content about the past.

Here’s a thought about the future — I wonder if “desktop AI/ML” will define the Mac of the 2020s the way desktop publishing did in the 80s. 

Combine user friendly tools for training models with your data with uniquely powerful hardware. Train on Mac, deploy on iPhone 

Yeah, I read through all that to only get 5nm.   But one thing is guaranteed-this is about PROFITS.   I'm sure Desktop ARM chips will be cheaper to make and will have greater profit margin.    I'm hoping Apple tries to increase its volume but won't hold my breath on this.   With the move to an arm based architecture I am expecting macOS to become more iPhone/ipad like as they share a common software base.  SuperOS for the future.

DED is usually very good a reiterating the history of Apple's rise to dominance, but doesn't have the same track record with prognostication about the future.

No "SuperOS," as you put it. iOS, iPadOS, macOS, watchOS, tvOS will continue to be Darwin-based and use many of the same frameworks, but will be distinct OSes. Not only is Apple not going to use a single OS for all products, but they continue to diverge their OSes.

You didn't mention performance. I think we'll see an above average YoY performance boost but performance per watt is the bigger gain here. I think a reduction in price behooves Apple as it will allow them to sell more Macs, but they could keep the price points the same—just don't conflate that with Apple increasing their profit margins unless you can account for the cost changes of all other components and associated costs, or that increasing profits for a product category relates to increasing profit margins (price drops aren't altruistic moves by companies).

Good grief. The Intel Core i3 chips that Apple puts in the entry level MacBook Air costs less to buy from Intel than it will cost TSMC to make the A14 chip. And the chip cost is only a fraction of the cost of the device. For example, the Qualcomm charged Google only $50 for the Snapdragon 765G that is in the $700 Pixel 5. I know that there are rumors that Apple will sell the ARM laptops starting at $799, but only because they want to sell more of them. The tradeoff is that Apple will have lower margins in return for that increased market share. That will make ARM-based Macs the equivalent of the iPhone SE 2020, for example. 

First off, never forget that this is from the same guy that as late as 2015 was claiming that no profits were being made on Android and that Google, Samsung and the rest were going to abandon it. He never took responsibility for those false claims.

Second, please realize that right now Apple has 8% market share in PCs. ChromeOS - which already includes ARM devices like the Lenovo IdeaPad Duet, the #1 selling ChromeOS device this year - has 11%. Were it not for mass shortages of Chromebooks caused by COVID-19 induced supply chain disruptions, ChromeOS would have 13-14% market share.

Third, this fellow writing off the success that is Android is hilarious. It has 75% - 85% market share. And the only reason why Google Play has less revenue than the app store is because Google chooses not to operate in China. In other words, the gap between Google Play and iOS is much closer than the gap between macOS and Windows. Yet he wants us to believe that Android is somehow a failure? That Samsung and the rest would be better off by not manufacturing Android apps? Or that all these developers and software companies have not gained tons of revenue off Android apps? 

Fourth, Apple Silicon being so much faster than Intel-based PCs won't matter if:

A) Apple Silicon devices continue to cost far more than Intel and AMD-based PCs with equivalent RAM and storage configurations: they do.
if Apple Silicon devices don't run the software that large subsets of the population needs and wants: they don't.

Let me give you an example: PC gaming. The Acer Nitro 5 is a legit 1080p gaming machine with 8 GB of RAM (easily and cheaply expandable to 32 GB), 256 GB SSD (again easily to expand with USB-C port), Intel Core i5 and Nvidia GPU and 16' screen. Cost: $650. The cheapest MacBook with an Intel i5 and a discrete GPU? $1200! And for that $1200 ... you won't be able to play very many games. Though some Steam games are supported, even massive hits like Rocket League are available. So gaming with a Mac requires bootcamp. And that is today. Steam, Origin, EA and Epic are not going to run at all on ARM-based Macs, just as they don't on ARM-based Windows 10. Bootcamp and Parallels? They won't be either.

Also, believing that Intel is going to be at 10nm forever is nuts. They have a 7nm design already, just no way to manufacture it. They were on the verge of getting TSMC to manufacture their 7nm chips but had to back off because of internal opposition, but a final decision will be made in 2021 based on the progress that they have made with their own foundries. (By the way, it is very unseemly for Apple fans - who are totally reliant on other companies to manufacture components for them - to bash companies who make their own components like Intel, Qualcomm and Samsung.)  Because Intel uses way more transistors in their chips than anyone else, a 7nm Intel chip is equivalent to a 5nm AMD, Qualcomm or Apple A14 chip. Now Intel is actually capable of paying TSMC to make their 7nm chips at any time. They won't because of business reasons: they want at least 18 months to sell their current 10nm chips first or else they will lose money on that generation. But rest assured that by the time the 2 year transition from Intel to Ax is complete, Intel will have released their 7nm chips and be well on the way to 5nm,

Until then? Another problem is thinking that Microsoft, Windows and ChromeOS only rely on Intel when they absolutely do not. In case you haven't heard, the fastest desktop chip is no longer the Intel i9-10900K. Instead the fastest desktop chip is the AMD Ryzen 9 5950X. The Ryzen 9 is on a 7nm process. 5nm process AMD chips are being manufactured right now in the same TSMC foundry that is currently making the 5nm Apple A14 chips. (This is why Qualcomm shifted their 5nm Snapdragon chips to Samsung for this year.) So if Dell, Lenovo, HP and the rest need to surpass what Intel is capable of, they can just use AMD. 

So long story short, don't believe anything this guy says. Just do an Internet search on his rants about how Android was NEVER going to catch iOS in market share and Google - who now has a $1 trillion and counting capitalization - was on the verge of going belly up. That will let you know how you shouldn't rely on this fellow for predictions.