While sales of Macs slump, adoption of the platform by new users is growing.
Apple Finishes Dumping Intel Entirely, Touts Results : Read more
Apple Finishes Dumping Intel Entirely, Touts Results : Read more
The scheduled forum maintenance has now been completed. If you spot any issues, please report them here in this thread. Thank you!
I've heard Mac laptops are popular among software developers. I know one research scientist (PhD, EE) who was provided one by his employer, for work, and quite likes it. You can no longer claim that Macs are strictly for non-technical users, these days.Yes, because those highly technical Mac users know and/or care what silicon is inside the case with the fruit on it.
It's the other way around. Not more Mac fans who buy it because they are impressed by the hardware. More non-Mac users who jump the fence because the performance of Apple processors is what it took to make the price-to-performance ratio more justifiable.Yes, because those highly technical Mac users know and/or care what silicon is inside the case with the fruit on it.
Indeed. Check the Battery Life tests, here:The difference between a Mac with an Intel processor and a Mac with an M1 or M2 is palpable the moment you open the laptop, and certainly when you check its battery life by the time you are done. Both technically inclined people and average Mac users can appreciate that.
It's always been that way with Apple. Every time Steve Jobs decided to "transition" the Mac to a new CPU, requiring emulation for the current Mac software at the time, Apple would lose between a quarter and half its Mac business, and would have to depend on new suckers coming in...😉 Actually, people needing/wanting laptops aren't really into hardware or making hardware choices, so MacBooks have always sold well--or as well as Apple cares about. For their sakes, I hope that the next Mac CPU isn't incompatible with the current ones. I can't believe Apple would be foolish enough to do that, but I've said exactly that before and been surprised. Back when Jobs was pushing Intel Macs like there was no tomorrow, he constantly talked up how much better the Intel CPUs were versus PowerPC, and the different PPC CPUs jobs moved the platform to. When Jobs was using PPC he talked up how much better PPC was than Intel, rinse and repeat, with each CPU transition. I was always thankful I never had to endure those transitions!While sales of Macs slump, adoption of the platform by new users is growing.
Apple Finishes Dumping Intel Entirely, Touts Results : Read more
And where's the evidence that Apple has lost any existing customers, in any of this transition? The fact that they're down year-over-year was explained in the article and not attributed to loss of customers.It's always been that way with Apple. Every time Steve Jobs decided to "transition" the Mac to a new CPU, requiring emulation for the current Mac software at the time, Apple would lose between a quarter and half its Mac business, and would have to depend on new suckers coming in...😉
Given that Apple spent about the past 1.5 decades building up their ARM CPUs to this point, with rumors of ARM-power laptops going back at least 5 years, you can be quite certain no further ISA transition is going to happen any time soon. This seems like FUD, to me.For their sakes, I hope that the next Mac CPU isn't incompatible with the current ones. I can't believe Apple would be foolish enough to do that, but I've said exactly that before and been surprised.
Apple's resurgence goes back well before the iPhone. First, he fixed the OS by bringing most of the tech from NeXT. Then, he revolutionized the music industry with the iPod and iTunes. The iPhone was the final feather in his cap, but I think Apple would still be a player in the tech scene without it. Don't forget that the music industry was in free-fall, with rampant online piracy of their content, until Steve Jobs entered the picture and proved that commercial online music sales could be profitable for them.had Jobs not created a Blackberry with a touch screen, Apple would now be an historical footnote.
You're going back 25 years, now. Do you really think that's in any way relevant to the company Apple is today? I don't. They were on the verge of bankruptcy, back in the 1990's.Apple cloners, when forced by contract to buy 80% of their components from Apple, provided better Macs than Apple at lower prices!
Probably true 10 years ago, but now their presence in cloud services (including video & music streaming) is growing quite a lot. Including original content for Apple TV.Apple is a cellphone company that sells computers on the side, imo.
$1k is actually unremarkable for a professional-grade display.Cook peddles ordinary junk at premium prices just like Jobs, but unlike Jobs, Cook does a lot less of that. Cook's $1k monitor stands out in my memory...😉
And where's the evidence that Apple has lost any existing customers, in any of this transition? The fact that they're down year-over-year was explained in the article and not attributed to loss of customers.
Why does it sound like FUD? I didn't state there would be another incompatible CPU transition in Apple's future. Above, you maintained that fundamental CPU/OS transitions didn't bother anyone, now you say me mentioning it is FUD...😉 Truth--nobody ever got advance notice before Jobs transitioned. Apple is not a CPU manufacturer, btw. It does not compete with AMD or even Intel in that regard. As usual, Apple hardware is chained to Apple products and goes nowhere else. By design.Given that Apple spent about the past 1.5 decades building up their ARM CPUs to this point, with rumors of ARM-power laptops going back at least 5 years, you can be quite certain no further ISA transition is going to happen any time soon. This seems like FUD, to me.
NeXT was a total failure. NeXT was monochrome, only. (Remember when Macs had tiny little monochorme monitors when other companies were using color? I was surprised at that Jobs could understand color television but not color computer monitors.) BTW, When Jobs came back to Apple, he talked the "board" into paying off the unpaid NeXT debt--which was more than half-a-billion dollars by then! Apple did so. BTW, the Music industry was being pilfered by the RIAA, IIRC. And Jobs copied the Beatles music and wound up in court with them and had to pay them another $50M to settle--as they sued him for infringement. Then Jobs said that he stole their music out of "homage" to the Beatles...😉 The Beatles didn't care about the "homage," and took the $50M, instead. I repeat, if not for the iPhone, Apple would be gone, today--I have no doubt about that.Apple's resurgence goes back well before the iPhone. First, he fixed the OS by bringing most of the tech from NeXT. Then, he revolutionized the music industry with the iPod and iTunes. The iPhone was the final feather in his cap, but I think Apple would still be a player in the tech scene without it. Don't forget that the music industry was in free-fall, with rampant online piracy of their content, until Steve Jobs entered the picture and proved that commercial online music sales could be profitable for them.
I'm not a Steve Jobs groupie, BTW. I could say a lot of negative things about him, too. However, I believe in credit where it's due. And speaking of which, he had the vision and the nous to acquire PA Semi (2008) and Intrinsity (2010), in order to build their CPUs powering their phones, tablets, and now these machines.
Tim Cook was under Job's wing for decades. Of course, he was influenced by Jobs...😉 Cook was Job's handpicked successor.You're going back 25 years, now. Do you really think that's in any way relevant to the company Apple is today? I don't. They were on the verge of bankruptcy, back in the 1990's.
Flashes in the pan..check out their real income/profits--almost all of it comes from their iPhone business. Without that, Apple is toast. Not a criticism, just a fact.Probably true 10 years ago, but now their presence in cloud services (including video & music streaming) is growing quite a lot. Including original content for Apple TV.
I said nothing about a monitor--it was the *monitor stand* he promoted for $1K! Just the stand...😉 You should remember that...Cook got booed loudly at MacWorld thing presentation IIRC. Ridiculous. Cook even called down the crowd of the rabidly Mac faithful who booed him...😉 That's Apple for you...I'll pass, however. Monitors can be costly--mine ATM was ~1k, for instance. But it was only the monitor stand that I was speaking of.$1k is actually unremarkable for a professional-grade display.
You made a claim that Apple has just lost users due to its ARM transition. Provide evidence or drop the claim. You can't make up in words what you lack in data.Where's the evidence? I lived through the period,
No, you merely made a very pointed suggestion. That's the very definition of FUD, and it flies in the face of overwhelming facts.Why does it sound like FUD? I didn't state there would be another incompatible CPU transition in Apple's future.
That's not true. Apple announced it was switching to Intel well in advance of when any Intel-based Macs reached the market. This transition period was needed in order for software vendors to port their software, among other things. Intel's addition of AVX was even rumored to be granted as a concession to win Apple's business, since SSE was inferior to PowerPC's Altivec.nobody ever got advance notice before Jobs transitioned.
Not in the sense of fabrication, but it's misleading to suggest they don't design their own CPUs.Apple is not a CPU manufacturer, btw.
They came out with yet-another-workstation during a time when the market and economy wasn't hungry for them (i.e. early 1990's). However, what set them apart was their software technology. This technology and expertise is what Jobs successfully leveraged to make the transformational change that was OS X.NeXT was a total failure.
Apple's stock price increased by over 28x between the point just before it acquired NeXT and just before the iPhone launched. Say what you want, but you're sorely lacking in any kind of credible evidence supporting this claim.I repeat, if not for the iPhone, Apple would be gone, today--I have no doubt about that.
You lost the plot, here. You had been complaining about their execution during the "clones" era. That pre-dated Jobs' return to Apple, so it's wrong to put that on Jobs or suggest it has anything to do with Cook.Tim Cook was under Job's wing for decades. Of course, he was influenced by Jobs...😉 Cook was Job's handpicked successor.
You need to look at trends and separate where they've been from where they're going.Flashes in the pan..check out their real income/profits--almost all of it comes from their iPhone business. Without that, Apple is toast. Not a criticism, just a fact.
What you said was "Cook's $1k monitor stands out in my memory...", which the average person would interpret to mean that you're talking about a $1k monitor which stands out in your memory.I said nothing about a monitor--it was the *monitor stand*
There's an important caveat here, and that's the propensity of M-series Macs to burn out their storage from so much swapping, especially on lower-end models with very little RAM. On the machines with storage in the form of soldered NAND, don't count on great resale value.Theres also the resale value... any old Apple product keeps its value even years later. try this with a windows device.
Yes, because those highly technical Mac users know and/or care what silicon is inside the case with the fruit on it.
Except for Apple and HP, all large PC makers suffered double-digit decreases during the quarter. Apple enjoyed a favorable year-over-year growth due to supply constraints in Q2 2022, as a result of COVID-related supply chain disruptions.
Flashes in the pan..check out their real income/profits--almost all of it comes from their iPhone business. Without that, Apple is toast. Not a criticism, just a fact.
i have clients with thousands of M1 macs and this is the first time i've heard of this, let alone seen a single failure. and they are on 24/7. the main failure mode are the keyboards and screens on macbooks from accident and liquid damage. Mac mini m1 is solid. they say the same about xbox series x ssd failures, but its overreported. can't find a single non icloud locked M1 mac in decent condition under 60% of new price on ebay or anywhere else. find one and i'll buy it right now.There's an important caveat here, and that's the propensity of M-series Macs to burn out their storage from so much swapping, especially on lower-end models with very little RAM. On the machines with storage in the form of soldered NAND, don't count on great resale value.
It might be designed 100% by apple but it doesn't belong 100% to apple, they still need the ARM license and softbank was looking for someone to buy ARM, nvidia didn't get to buy them but I don't think somebody else buying them is off the table yet.Furthermore, in the case of the Intel transition, you're talking about Apple sourcing 3rd party CPUs, whereas their current generation of IP is 100% designed in-house. That's part of the reason it took them a 12-year buildup to reach the point where they could begin to transition their laptops to their ARM-based CPUs. That also makes it a very different proposition for them to transition to anything else.
Yes. I recall something about Nvidia having a 20-year term for its ARM ISA license (they designed a few ARM cores, in-house). I have no idea what schedule Apple is on. If ARM tried to squeeze Apple too much for renewal of the license, Apple would have several options for retaliation that could make it a difficult and expensive proposition for ARM.It might be designed 100% by apple but it doesn't belong 100% to apple, they still need the ARM license
They are going to (re-)IPO, which is why ARM is squeezing Qualcomm to try and boost revenues.and softbank was looking for someone to buy ARM, nvidia didn't get to buy them but I don't think somebody else buying them is off the table yet.