cloudguy

MisterKit said:

The Apple Silicon Mac is a threshold game changing moment. I hardly doubt it will be introduced with just a press release.

foregoneconclusion said:

Kind of a 'duh' that the first Apple Silicon hardware gets a keynote. It's a genuinely historic product. 

Hyperbole much? When:

A) Apple has switched CPUs in their Macs multiple times in the past?
Linux, ChromeOS and Windows devices running on ARM have existed for years?

I have seen claims here on how ARM-based Macs are going to significantly increase market share. But none of them can give any reasons why anyone who currently uses Windows and owns tons of Windows software and games would be any more inclined to use macOS on ARM than they were macOS on Intel. (By contrast I can think of several reasons why they would be LESS likely.) There are some claims that switching to ARM-based Macs will save hundreds of dollars and allow Macs to compete with Windows laptops based on price, but that ignores that a $1000 MacBook Air and a $1300 MacBook Pro have Intel Core i3 and i5 CPUs that cost Apple no more than $100 per unit (because they cost as little as $70 retail). But even if an ARM-based Macs generally cost the same as Windows PCs there still won't be a compelling reason for Windows users to switch.

It is the same thing with Android all over again. You folks are convinced that Android software and hardware are terrible, Android users are undergoing a bleak, miserable horrible existence and all Apple has to do is throw a life raft their way and they will switch en masse. Actually ... nearly all Android users simply like Android devices and aren't going to switch no matter what Apple does. Ditto with Windows. As fascinating as an ARM-based Mac will be to people who love and are dedicated to the Apple ecosystem, people who like their Dell, HP and Lenovo professional machines and their Acer, Asus and Razer gaming machines are still going to like their professional and gaming machines. Those devices aren't going to become bad and unusable just because ARM-based Macs are available.

Keep in mind: they are bad and unusable TO YOU already. Because you own Intel-based Macs now, right? You own Apple Watches, Apple TVs, AirPods, iPhones and iPads, think that they are the best thing on the planet and to you making your MacBook more like your iPhone is the best thing in the world. But the guy who buys a new Dell XPS or Lenovo Thinkpad or Asus ROG (a gaming laptop line) every 3 years because he likes XPS, Thinkpad and ROG devices ... why should he switch? Especially since much of the software on his XPS won't run on the Mac. (Pretty much NONE of the games on this ROG will.) None of the accessories that he bought for his ThinkPad will be relevant to that Mac. And since his XPS/Thinkpad/ROG will continue to work as well FOR HIM when the ARM-based Macs launch as they did before?

Rayz2016 said:

Er … isn’t doing a web app what Apple has been suggesting since day 1?

There are technical and business reasons to prefer using apps. Especially on iOS, which doesn't enable the range of PWA functionality that, well, every other platform allows. So while Microsoft is doing this on order to get on iOS, they aren't happy about it, and they are only going to enable the browser on iOS as part of their "phase 3" rollout which will enable xCloud via browser on all platforms, including their own Windows.

Amazon is a different beast. They would prefer keeping Google users off their service for as long as possible. That is why they are not doing an app right now for anything but Fire TV. Web access will be available but only for Apple and Microsoft devices. They will block Android and Chromebook browser users. Of course, they will need to enable it on their own Kindle Fire devices at some point because enabling it for iPads and iPhones but not their own hardware is a raw deal for the people who bought their hardware. When that happens, folks on Google Android will be able to run Luna using the Amazon App Store. 

Funny story: did you know that Apple tried to stop using Amazon from using the "App Store" name via lawsuit? They dropped it only after a judge told them "yeah, you can't trademark that ... and even if you could you didn't invent that term in the first place anyway." Hilarious ...

Rayz2016 said:

gatorguy said:

As for regular mentions it's kinda rare here for articles opining on Apple not to somehow drag Google or Android into the discussion too, 

Yeah, but it's you who brings up Google when trying to stick in a point that Google did it first.

No, he is ALWAYS responding to misinformation, FUD and outright falsehoods brought up by others. Of the Android devotees on this site, Gatorguy - a very long timer - NEVER trolls or thread-jacks. He doesn't even respond to the vast majority of the anti-Android nonsense! So you owe him an apology for that false accusation. 

hriw-annon@xs4all.nl said:

If Microsoft gets what it wants, how long before we can stream Word and Excel?

You ... already can. And you do with Google Docs also. But wait, you were joking, right? That's right. Joke's on me!

sflocal said:

CheeseFreeze said:

Yup, this is the Apple I know as a developer. They are like the mafia. Time they get in serious trouble with the EU and get forced to clean house.

You're that rude guest that enters someone else's house, and then whine about how the owner runs it.

I you want the wild-west and anything-goes mentality, then stick to developing on Android.  The reason iOS is so popular and profitable is for those exact reasons you hate it.

As a developer myself, I remember the days of boxed software and self-marketing and particularly all the overhead.  

Ummm ... Android is even more popular and even more profitable. Android market share: 85%. Android app revenue when ALL app stores are added in including the #1 app market in the world - China - that Google Play is not present: more than the App Store and has been for years. Of course, I am not saying that Apple should adopt Google's model and I am particularly not saying that the government should force them to. But it is past time for people like you to finally admit that both the Android and the iOS models are extremely successful. Google rode Android from being a tiny company that was legitimately threatened with being run out of business by the combination of Yahoo and Microsoft to a $1 trillion valuation. Had it not been for Android, Google would be a unit of Microsoft, Yahoo, Oracle or even Tencent by now. Seriously, check Google's market cap in 2011, before Android really took off thanks to the Samsung Galaxy S2 and Galaxy Note, and now. 

And as a former developer myself, I remember when the vast majority of software sales were via direct download over the Internet to Windows PCs. Only a tiny percentage of software sales came from CDs and DVDs. And if you were on Linux, you downloaded your software over the Internet exclusively because there was no consumer commercial Linux software market. Let me state this: app stores already existed before the iPhone. And downloading software over the Internet had already long outstripped buying CDs from retail stores as the primary method of software distribution. Haven't you ever heard of download.com? Formerly cnet.com/download? Been around since 1996. Were so big at one point that they actually had a Super Bowl commercial!

These arguments that Apple is pushing are designed to trick two classes of people. 
1. Non-technical people such as the people with degrees in law, political science and economics/business that make up Congress, the judiciary and trade boards. (Note: one of the few judges to side with Google in the Oracle lawsuit over APIs was the one who writes code in his spare time and actually used said APIs.)
2. People under 30 who have basically grown up with iPhones and can't conceive of a world without them.