cloudguy

headfull0wine said:

I wonder if the COVID upheaval has forced Apple to abandon the hardware redesigns and focus on getting the new Silicon out the door in existing enclosures before the end of the year. They can always introduce new form factors next year. 

Why should there be "new form factors"? You are aware of the following:

1. Apple has repeatedly stated that they will never have touchscreen Macs. So ... what new form factors are possible in the first place?
2. You are aware that there have been Windows 10-based ARM devices since 2017 and ChromeOS-based ARM devices since 2011. What form factors do they have? The same form factors as the Intel and AMD devices. The ARM-based Linux servers that have been around forever? The same as the Windows servers.

ARM will enable smaller and thinner designs. It will make fanless designs possible on certain machines ... but not ones that are capable of heavy productivity workloads at this time. Yes, there is a reason why iPadOS doesn't support truly heavy multitasking, multithreading and I/O despite the CPU being capable ... iPads are extremely thin and have no fans. Just because the Ax chips don't have the power/heat issues that Intel and AMD chips do doesn't mean that they don't have them at all. You had better believe that the ARM-based Linux workstations and servers also have to deal with heat dissipation and power consumption issues. They are merely able to get more out of their devices before the power/heat problems start than they are with Intel Xeon or Core i9 workstations and servers. 

So no, Apple switching to ARM will not radically reinvent the computer any more than Apple's switching CPUs in Macs in the past did. 

Wgkrueger said:

Glad to see we’re heading towards the 22nd century with a better architecture and software platform. Now if only the Windows platform would just die already.

If any platform dies it will not be the one that has 80% market share and like 95% compatibility with custom professional/enterprise applications. Also, within 3 years Microsoft, Intel and AMD will figure out a solution for emulating x86 and x86-64 on mainstream ARM (meaning Qualcomm, MediaTek and Samsung). Those are about to have a massive leap forward in performance thanks to the Cortex X1 super core that ARM Holdings and Samsung co-developed. In addition, the first batch of 5 nm (non-Apple) midrange ARM CPUs are already available in devices being sold in China. The first flagship devices with them are going to be available in the United States in February. The second generation of those chips available in 2022 will likely be when x86 and x86-84 emulation will be practical. At that time, Windows users will be able to pick Qualcomm (or Samsung), AMD or Intel devices with roughly similar performance, and ChromeOS ones also.

Speaking of Intel, they aren't going to just stand pat. They are having TSMC manufacture their new 7nm design rather than wait on their own foundries. Right about the time that Apple ends support for Intel-based Macs, they should be on 5nm. Of course, Apple will be on 3nm for their Ax chips by that time, but the point is that when Intel reaches 5nm - whether their foundries or TSMCs' foundries actually manufactures the chips it will happen soon - their chips will have high performance/low power designs too. Even more so for AMD, who like Qualcomm and Samsung will release 5nm chips in 2021 (though a 5nm AMD chip is akin go a 7nm Intel chip in terms of performance, but that is a whole other conversation). 

melgross said:

swineone said:

melgross said:

swineone said:

"This works with any Intel Mac app" [quoted from the article, regarding Rosetta 2]

Are you sure? Does that include Parallels running x86-64 Windows? It's quite telling that they mentioned Rosetta and virtualization, yet made no mention of this, which could alleviate concerns on many pro users' minds (myself included).

I doubt they meant that. But as Apple has said, only 2% of Macs coming in for service had Windows installed in Bootcamp. How many are using Parallels or other virtualization software with Windows, I don’t know, but it’s not a lot. I have it too, but I haven’t run Windows for more than a year. I still do Run Linux occasionally though. So likely, from what I hear, that’s more important.

i doubt I’d too many pro users use Windows on their Mac these days. It’s mostly used by gamers.

I have zero games on my Windows installation under Parallels. I do have EDA software (electronics simulation, schematic capture, PCB routing, FPGAs, etc.), test & measurement software to interface with electronics T&M gear, MCAD software, software development apps (Visual Studio, the real one not the toy Code version, plus various embedded software tools), etc.

Another group of people will have in-house apps that are Windows only.

Maybe in your line of work pro users don't need Windows software. It doesn't mean no one else does.

And those like you consist of what, 0.5% of Apple’s user base?

Facepalm. If it were that tiny - as Apple has only 6-8% of the computer sales in any given year - Parallels wouldn't be commercially viable in the first place. It is precisely because there are LOTS of macOS users who need Windows software for work. It looks like Google and Parallels are teaming up to promote Chromebooks and Chromeboxes to replace MacBooks and iMacs for this use case. Parallels clearly prefers macOS users continuing to use their products on ChromeOS to them switching to Windows and there is a reason for that.

22july2013 said:

I like seeing Apple low on the list. For one thing, it shows room to grow. For another, it gets monopolist scaremongers off of Apple's back.

On the other hand, to be fair, unit sales aren't as important as total dollar sales. If Rolls Royce sold as many cars as Ford, but at 10 times the price, (and probably 20 times the profit) that makes Rolls Royce the more profitable company. Profit is more important than unit sales. I don't know what Huawei and Xiaomi phones sell for, but some Samsung phones sell for prices between $100 and $200. What does the average iPhone sell for, $900 or more? Probably more, considering Apple's high cost of storage. If profit levels, rather than unit sales, are counted, then Apple is probably in first place.

First off, Samsung had its best quarter in history: https://www.theverge.com/2020/10/29/21539702/samsung-q3-earnings-record-revenue-phone-sales
Second, Samsung now sells tons of phones that cost far more than any Apple phone: - the Z Fold, the Z Flip, the Note Ultra and S20 Ultra - and they all sell well despite ranging from $1300-$2000 in cost. In fact, the $2000 Z Fold far exceeded Samsung's expectation. 
Third, while Apple leads in profits, it is nowhere near the ridiculous levels that it once was. At one point it was (erroneously) reported that Apple had 105% of the smartphone industry profits (because where Apple was making a ton of money and Samsung a little, everyone else was losing billions according to analysts). At last report it was down to 65%, and last quarter it may well have been under 60%. While industry analysts once loved talking about smartphone profit percentages back when it appeared that Apple was the only one making money - it was an endless topic of discussion - now that it is no longer the case it is never really discussed anymore and instead gets buried. The analysts who once blared every opportunity they got that Apple was the only one making money off hardware (which was always wrong in the first place as they were basically only looking at Samsung, LG, HTC and Sony while ignoring everyone else, allowing them to basically ignore the profits that Samsung was making by leading the world in smartphone sales in order to focus on how much LG, HTC and Sony were losing) to bragging about how much Apple is crushing it in services (along with predicting that ARM-based Macs will rule the world). 
Fourth: well take a look at this election. Biden has all but indicated that if he takes office, he will reverse the actions that the Trump administration took against Huawei. Huawei had already signed carrier agreements with AT&T and was on the verge of doing so with Verizon and T-Mobile. When Biden allows Huawei access to Android and allows TSMC to make their Kirin CPUs again and allows Huawei to fulfill their agreement with AT&T and sign them with Verizon and T-Mobile, their sales are going to explode as Huawei offers Samsung quality for a good bit less money. Samsung will still be #1, but Huawei will be #2 with the gap between them and Apple at #3 being pretty significant. 

At some point a company that actually makes money is going to have to buy Spotify. But will the antitrust types go for it?
AT&T, Disney, Viacom and Comcast won't bite. They are too busy paying off debts from their Time Warner, Fox, Paramount and Universal purchases. For Disney and AT&T in particular it looks really bad. Disney's debt load is massive and while AT&T's debt is smaller, they don't have anything like Disney+ to pay it off.

Were Netflix to buy Spotify, I guess that would be fine as Google, Amazon and Apple all own video and music streaming services (YouTube, YouTube TV, Google TV, YouTube Music; Prime Video, Prime Music; Apple TV+, Apple Music plus whatever they split iTunes up into). 

But were Google, Amazon or Apple to buy Spotify, the antitrust regulators would freak out. This isn't the same environment that allowed Google to buy Songza, Apple to buy Beats etc. a few years back. 

Maybe Sirius XM can buy it and merge it with Pandora? That would probably be the best outcome. Spotify does need to continue to exist in some form. And while that combination would have a huge market share, Google, Apple and Amazon still have their streaming music offerings so it would be far from a monopoly.