News Apple Finishes Dumping Intel Entirely, Touts Results

Status
Not open for further replies.

bit_user

Titan
Ambassador
Yes, because those highly technical Mac users know and/or care what silicon is inside the case with the fruit on it.
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.

I would never buy one, because I'm too cheap and I dislike Apple as a company. By itself, that's reason enough. However, they also have zero user-upgradable parts (not even storage!). Finally, I'd want to run Linux, which only works with caveats or in a VM (no thanks).
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ikjadoon
Aug 5, 2023
1
2
15
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.
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.

Agree with the other guy about not wanting one for myself, but still.
 

bit_user

Titan
Ambassador
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.
Indeed. Check the Battery Life tests, here:

 
  • Like
Reactions: ikjadoon

waltc3

Honorable
Aug 4, 2019
451
251
11,060
While sales of Macs slump, adoption of the platform by new users is growing.

Apple Finishes Dumping Intel Entirely, Touts Results : Read more
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!
Had Jobs not created a Blackberry with a touch screen, Apple would now be an historical footnote. Years ago people begged Apple to go head-to-head with Windows in the global markets, as Mac was then x86, but Apple steadfastly refused. Apple is like Intel to a bizarre extent--neither company does well in the face of vigorous competition. Apple cloners, when forced by contract to buy 80% of their components from Apple, provided better Macs than Apple at lower prices! So of course Apple shut the Mac clone business down forever. Apple is a cellphone company that sells computers on the side, imo. Jobs removing the word "Computer" from the company Logo was a giant hint as to where he was taking the company. 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...;)
 
Last edited:

bit_user

Titan
Ambassador
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...;)
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.

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.
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.

had Jobs not created a Blackberry with a touch screen, Apple would now be an historical footnote.
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.

Apple cloners, when forced by contract to buy 80% of their components from Apple, provided better Macs than Apple at lower prices!
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 is a cellphone company that sells computers on the side, imo.
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.

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...;)
$1k is actually unremarkable for a professional-grade display.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ikjadoon

waltc3

Honorable
Aug 4, 2019
451
251
11,060
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.

Where's the evidence? I lived through the period, and it was always more than obvious that every time Apple transitioned--a painful experience, btw, they lost existing customers. Maybe it suits you to believe that Mac customers are masochists...;) But I really don't think so. Think about how exciting it was for Mac owners to have to throw away all of their expensive software because it either wouldn't run at all or else wouldn't run well through Rosetta and other Mac emulation. Microsoft got where it is today by maintaining backwards compatibility even with new SoA hardware. That is a huge advantage. As well, while Apple OS's support only a very limited number hardware devices, Windows supports practically anything available on the market.
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.
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.

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.
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.

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.

All I'm saying about Jobs is true--not "negative." He was like a cult leader, really, and I'm happy to see those days have finally ended. Jobs had a reputation for carrying around the RDF (Reality Distortion Field) when he would publicly lie about Apple's competitors, as well as Apple's own products...It was absolutely and 100% true, and a running joke while he was alive.
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.
Tim Cook was under Job's wing for decades. Of course, he was influenced by Jobs...;) Cook was Job's handpicked successor.
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.
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.
$1k is actually unremarkable for a professional-grade display.
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.
 

bit_user

Titan
Ambassador
Where's the evidence? I lived through the period,
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.

Why does it sound like FUD? I didn't state there would be another incompatible CPU transition in Apple's future.
No, you merely made a very pointed suggestion. That's the very definition of FUD, and it flies in the face of overwhelming facts.

nobody ever got advance notice before Jobs transitioned.
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.

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.

Apple is not a CPU manufacturer, btw.
Not in the sense of fabrication, but it's misleading to suggest they don't design their own CPUs.

NeXT was a total failure.
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.

Anyway, the monochrome monitor thing was quickly remedied by the Nextstation Color. However, it's not as if the whole monochrome thing came out of nowhere. I once had an old Sun 360 workstation with a 1280x1024 19" monochrome monitor and the text on that thing was absolutely beautiful. If you were doing print work (layout, copy editing, etc.), at the time, it truly was the state of the art, as shadow masks were fairly coarse and obscured fine detail.

Heck, I'd argue that even for writing code, monochrome would let you comfortably use smaller fonts, to squeeze more on the screen. Since text editors had only just begun to do things like syntax highlighting, around that time, you weren't really losing much by doing so.

I can understand why it might seem odd to you, as an outsider.

I repeat, if not for the iPhone, Apple would be gone, today--I have no doubt about that.
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.

Tim Cook was under Job's wing for decades. Of course, he was influenced by Jobs...;) Cook was Job's handpicked successor.
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.

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.
You need to look at trends and separate where they've been from where they're going.

I said nothing about a monitor--it was the *monitor stand*
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.

Anyway, I definitely do remember the overpriced "wheels" upgrade for the old Mac Pro, and I'll agree that they do indeed have some ridiculously-priced accessories. As a matter of fact, I already stated above that Apple's pricing practices are just one of the things that turns me off on the company.

I think the main difference between us is that just because I don't like Apple or a lot of its users, it doesn't mean I feel moved to spread FUD about them. Honestly, don't you have better things to do?
 

purpleduggy

Prominent
Apr 19, 2023
167
44
610
the main reason is that Apple is better at the pro audio/studio market. audio on both windows and linux is a broken mess of high latency driver complexity. Core Audio and interfaces like the Universal Audio Apollo series and UAD2 DSP accelerators work better on Apple. Protools and the Avid DSP boxes work better on Apple too. Yes there are windows/linux alternatives, but go into any music studio that actually makes money and you will find Apple. MIDI is far superior on Apple because Core Audio low latency. Garageband is free on every mac and it is the central point of many beginner musicians. They also have Mainstage which is an incredible tool for performing with VSTs. They also have standard Thunderbolt ports on all their PCs which is a rare thing on a windows box.

Then there is also Shapr3D and Procreate which has no competitor at all. Yeah Shapr3d is on windows but no other stylus matches the Apple Pencil.

There is a reason why Apple is doing well in the PC market. Assuming their clients are fools is usually someone who doesn't know about their products or particular hardware that works on it. Take a deeper look and you will see. Theres also the resale value... any old Apple product keeps its value even years later. try this with a windows device.
 

bit_user

Titan
Ambassador
Theres also the resale value... any old Apple product keeps its value even years later. try this with a windows device.
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.
 

ikjadoon

Distinguished
Feb 25, 2006
1,994
61
19,860
Yes, because those highly technical Mac users know and/or care what silicon is inside the case with the fruit on it.

Basically every outlet that reviewed the M1 Air (including this one) said it had class-leading battery life, solid screen, great trackpad, good keyboard, zero fan noise, very low heat, and, in 2020, also class-leading performance.

If consumers can stomach macOS, that's clear. There's a reason Intel, AMD, Qualcomm, etc. are claiming to chase the M1.

That the MBA M1 is at $749 now (try finding a similar screen + battery life in a Windows machine at that price) is more reason there's pressure against Windows OEMs.

As this very site reported just a month ago:


ow6kj6Y23dL9RF8PjBa8TJ-1200-80.png


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.

Supply constraints, YoY growth, one could copy-paste this story to any brand. Apple did better than most, but it can still be (and rightly is) analyzed as a consumer PC business like HP or Lenovo or Dell.

//

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.

Come on now. Have you read a PC manufacturer's quarterly earnings? You'll see that the Mac rakes in as much PC revenue as Lenovo, but the iPhone just goes bonkers.

Profits / income: few break this down per segment, so please share what you find. 😀

For the quarter ending 1 April 2023 (as not all have reported this cycle), let's compare computer revenue alone:

Apple Mac revenue: $7.2 billion
Lenovo PC-only revenue: $7.2 billion
HP "Personal Systems" revenue: $8.1 billion
Dell "Client" revenue: $12.0 billion

Now you can play the game of who has the highest margins. Hint: the margins are just terrible for PC OEMs. Atrocious.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bit_user

purpleduggy

Prominent
Apr 19, 2023
167
44
610
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.
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 is also the benefit that you cannot steal apple products. if you steal it, then an icloud lock renders it a paperweight.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bit_user
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.
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.
And while that wouldn't change any current designs it could very well cause them to go for a different ISA if and when it happens.
Or they might buy ARM themselves...
 

bit_user

Titan
Ambassador
It might be designed 100% by apple but it doesn't belong 100% to apple, they still need the ARM license
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.

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.
They are going to (re-)IPO, which is why ARM is squeezing Qualcomm to try and boost revenues.

I do feel a little bad for ARM. It makes some solid IP, but just doesn't have the kind of margins it would if it were a CPU company like Intel or AMD, instead of just an IP company.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.