aaronsullivan

macplusplus said:

If it was so easy why Microsoft has failed with Surface RT? Why desktop Windows applications didn’t run on RT?

Windows 10 on ARM is the new challenge (RT is old!) and it does better than before. You can run x86 programs fine though performance isn’t great via emulation. But I don’t know if the Windows ARM machines are near the speed of current iPad Pros.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2018/11/16/18098230/microsoft-windows-on-arm-64-bit-app-support-arm64

This is what I meant when I mentioned that Microsoft was helping to solve the boot camp issue. Theoretically, Window 10 on ARM would work for the desperate one or two occasional work apps some Mac users need, at least.

macplusplus said:

“Apple can certainly now also ship nonThose who remain with PCs do so for very specific reasons.

Like browsing the web and using it without the mobile version? I mean, this is close to solved with the iPadOS Beta and I’m loving it, but many computer users still see
phones and tablets as much less capable for even commonly needed computing tasks.

Also, form factor of a Laptop being the priority for many and annoying to replicate on tablets is another simple reason that is very common.

But it won’t switch until it can replace every Intel processor across its entire range of machines;

I disagree here. As the article reminds us, the App Store will be able to distribute different binaries as needed like it currently does for iOS apps with differences and the dev strategy seems to be targeting this as well.

Ultra portable MacBook could get big battery life increase and remain fanless potentially, long before new ARM chips were suitable to replace large desktops and there’s no good reason to wait if they can achieve a good compatibility option for current software.

Just like Apple doesn't give specific data, the claims made in this article are very sparse on detail, so its hard to take them seriously. I'm inclined to believe it, but people also put up with keyboard issues without complaining or trying to get it serviced -- that hurts reputation even if Apple has limited numbers on that. Also, Apple might not want to dig up previous reports and talk extensively about all the failures no matter how low the percentage.

The problem here is that people didn't like the feel of the new keyboards or the progression towards less and less responsiveness (something remedied a bit in the second butterfly iteration) and when there were reliability issues on top of that, and long delays for super expensive repairs, it was too easy to vilify the design of the keys and demand change. It didn't really matter how many there were. 

maestro64 said:

Yep, no surprise here and most likely the reason QCOM and Apple settle out of court. With this ruling QOM would not have been in a good position with negotiating deal with Apple.

Not following the logic here. If this ruling had come first, I feel like Apple would have either gone to trial with new precedent set, or gotten a better deal (if reports are to be believed that the deal was not great for Apple). Still seems more likely to me that Apple, faced with Intel's inability to deliver timely modems (that would be licensed from Qualcomm anyway) and a 5-year ramp up for its own team to work around patents in its internally developed modems, was facing years without 5G in the iPhone which would potentially be devastating as early as Fall of 2020. If Apple had lost its trial, the financial loss could be way worse than if it settled when there were still risks for Qualcomm. There were no options, in other words, but for Apple to give its lunch to the bully.