- Last Active
"Should you wait?" Yes, of course. Never buy the version 1.0 of anything Apple. Version 2.0 will be so much better. See, e.g., OSX 10 vs 10.1, the first ipod touch vs the 2nd generation ipod touch, the first iphone vs iphone 3g, first apple watch ("what is this?") vs 2nd gen, 1st ipad vs 2nd gen (people still use these for certain purposes)... the list goes on. It's going to be 2-3 more WWDCs before the Apple-Silicon version of MacOS starts doing things that x86 doesn't; the transition will be that long and support for x86 will be 3-4 years after that. So anything new that you buy now will be ~6-7 years old before Apple stops supporting it."Will you wait?" No. Of course not. And neither will I. It's Apple! Take my money.
It's a different world from 2006, when it was most important to run windows natively b/c there weren't many mac apps. Now there will be more useful "mac" apps than there ever have been.... ever.... thanks to iOS (and iPad OS). And the largest user base.... ever... thanks to iPhone and iPad owners. So just because your software is windows-only now, the question to ask is, "do they have iOS developers making iOS or iPad OS versions, now?" Because if they do you will have a native mac version.After 15 years with Intel, every company that was going to make an x86 mac version, does, and the vast majority of these will port their stuff. Many other companies are still windows only, but there are companies with windows and iOS (but not x86 mac) products - they have iOS developers, already. So Apple's business decision is betting that these "windows and iOS" companies will assign their existing teams to expand their iOS products into the full mac feature set. For example, Autodesk Revit doesn't work on a mac, so engineering and architecture firms have to use windows, but there is an iOS (iPad OS) version for field use. (Revit is the big-boy-pants evolution of autocad, btw)...and don't forget that Microsoft isn't oblivious to reality, anymore, and is seeing these same intel performance issues. The ARM version of windows sucks right now, but they have 2-5 years to improve it so that it runs great natively/virtually on a mac. Microsoft is more than happy to sell you a windows OS license for your apple silicon - they don't care about Intel they just care about selling their own stuff. I'd also expect ARM windows to imitate "rosetta," so that the ARM windows can run x86 windows. Performance hit, but even non-apple ARM is looking pretty good vs Intel nowadays, and there is no indication that Intel has a new architectural path forward so Microsoft will need to start thinking about this same switch (they just can't do it as nimbly as Apple due to existing code & customer base).
sirozha said:The point is to use the iPhone as the trackpad, the Wi-Fi and Bluetooth clients, and the computer. Docking the iPhone would change the apps from the iOS mode to the macOS mode. Undocking the phone would change the apps back to the iOS mode.
You need at least 20 Gbps to be able to push video wirelessly, which is not possible with today’s technology.
Docked phone would become the foundation of the MacBook, and Apple would be able to justify a higher price of the phone because a phone and a relatively inexpensive dock would equal a MacBook.This is my idea of 3 years ago, of which I wrote extensively in several Apple centric forums. I should have patented it then.Agreed. Like many patents this might never happen, but I agree with you on the proposed premise and function. I think the image of a phone fitting neatly into the trackpad slot is a red herring (this'll work great so long as apple never changes the dimensions on their phones! ...um...). My guess is this patent is additional protection for a not-yet-released ipad [pro] dock. I think this because the processing power needed to approximate macbook speed is something we'd see first from the iPad. The clamshell shown would be keyboard, trackpad, additional battery, with the ipad as monitor. ...and maybe the shell has additional ports to support a 2nd monitor or whatever (like sidecar in reverse).
A lot of comments here are focusing on US tax law, which... I mean, fine, but US tax law isn't really the story, here.
Tim might have been cynically lobbying for lower taxes with his comments (Correction: He definitely was), but there is a very good point being made as well. A big issue with international taxation is that each country has their own rules around when you start getting taxed: "Permanent Establishment" status, and so on. In many countries it's not obvious whether you even have PE status, or not - it can be a series of subjective or quasi-objective "we know it when we see it" type guidelines that spawn confusion, litigation, and (ideally, for the rent-seeking governments) tax penalties for not complying with non-obvious payment obligations. But let's say you have PE status (congratulations?), now what? Each country has their own sets of benefits and obligations: some are written more clearly than others (and heaven help you if you have to deal with a civil code country's tax regs). So what do you do when you're working internationally? You seek out the countries with the simplest (often, also, lowest) tax burdens. Nothing is simple, so if you see a dozen other MNCs doing the double Irish with a Dutch sandwich you say, "mmm, that looks pretty tasty to me, too." And then you just hope and pray you're not big enough, or flamboyant enough, to be an unlucky company who gets fined by the rent-seeking governments.
That's how it really works and that's.... not great. I'll naively believe this is what Tim really was thinking about when he said this.
The company is switching to a new naming scheme as well, seen below.