Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Advertise on LowEndTalk.com
Apple Silicon
New on LowEndTalk? Please read our 'Community Rules' by clicking on it in the right menu!

Apple Silicon

SynatiqSynatiq Member, Provider
edited June 24 in General

What are your thoughts about Apple's latest announcements?

  1. What do you think will happen to Windows and Linux systems running intel and AMD chips if Apple's chips outperform them? Apple's chips are typically 2-3 years ahead of Qualcomm and Mediatek, and Qualcomm chips aren't cheap at all. They already perform faster, cooler, more efficiently than a lot of Windows laptops - imagine a beefed-up Apple desktop CPU.

  2. Why should a developer bother making an app for Android and Windows / Linux while they could easily get it all done for the entire range of Apple devices? This was already a strength for Apple, but now it's a whole new level. Obviously, there are still Android developers, but from what I see, the Android app is always left secondary - only if absolutely necessary. At least for clients here in the UK. Again, why bother spending more efforts to make an app for one platform alone, which probably won't work the same on all Android phones, while Apple development is fully compatible with the entire product line-up?

  3. What does that mean for the datacenter? I can't see Apple bothering to make server chips anytime soon, but what happens when the advantage of their chips, which is already pretty hyped up, outweigh our current AMD / Intel servers?

This is great news for the consumer, but I can't help but feel like it will hurt everyone else - chipmakers, PC makers, Windows, the Linux community.. Inevitably, it will bite everyone's ass.

LinusTechTips with his 256GB Ram desktop machines is now considered low-end compared to iJustine's 1.5TB Ram Mac Pro. Image that scale on an ARM system developed by a company with the biggest R&D budget.

Being involved in product design and manufacturing, I just can't help but feel worried that this will slowly end every other CPU maker, and consequently the adopters of those vintage CPUs.

Microsoft might make an ARM build of Windows, but who's gonna make the chips for those ODMs? Qualcomm is 2 years behind already, whilst being more expensive to license to ODMs in addition to purchasing cost. Apple has it all sorted in house, and wins the developers.

As for Android, I wouldn't be surprised if Google drops it entirely in a few years. It is expensive to maintain as it is free at the moment, and their Pixel sales are pretty bad. At some point, they might want a profit, and they have a history for giving up on things.

Comments

  • hzrhzr Member, Moderator
    edited June 24

    AOSP users remain the hyper extreme minority, and the goal is to grow the userbase for obvious reasons with Play Services installed.

    You are still not making one app for multiple device-types (i.e., making an app for Mac that also works on iOS). Windows 8/UWP tried that too.

    @Synatiq said: which probably won't work the same on all Android phones, while Apple development is fully compatible with the entire product line-up?

    It generally does work the same on most Android phones that are anything resembling reasonably modern. Indian $10-13 Jio Android devices run 8.1+.

    You are not going to get your app to run on Android 4-5 on a default modern build, much like you are not going to get your app running on an iPhone 3G or 4 in 2020.

    The absolute minimum I would build for is Nougat and that would require some VERY heavy reasoning and justification. I would fight my project manager in one of the Googleplex parking lots if they were demanding anything below Nougat. Oreo+ would be default.

    @Synatiq said: Obviously, there are still Android developers, but from what I see, the Android app is always left secondary - only if absolutely necessary

    This is incredibly country-specific. I'm not sure why. Some are >95% Android.

    @Synatiq said: Microsoft might make an ARM build of Windows, but who's gonna make the chips for those ODMs? Qualcomm is 2 years behind already, whilst being more expensive to license to ODMs in addition to purchasing cost. Apple has it all sorted in house, and wins the developers.

    This exists for Surface and RPi already and has for years

  • SynatiqSynatiq Member, Provider
    edited June 24

    @hzr said:
    AOSP users remain the hyper extreme minority, and the goal is to grow the userbase for obvious reasons with Play Services installed.

    That can't be an answer for a big maker like Samsung. Exynos isn't exactly there, and they still rely on a company that doesn't make money on the software side.

    You are still not making one app for multiple device-types (i.e., making an app for Mac that also works on iOS). Windows 8/UWP tried that too.

    But you're making one mobile app that runs on iPhone, iPad and MacOS. Eventually, the gap will close.

    Try making an Android app that works perfectly on two well specced Qualcomm and Mediatek systems. It's never the same result, always more time to spend troubleshooting. Developers will get lazy and comfortable with Apple's transition. Consumers will choose reliability.

    @Synatiq said: Obviously, there are still Android developers, but from what I see, the Android app is always left secondary - only if absolutely necessary

    This is incredibly country-specific. I'm not sure why. Some are >95% Android.

    That's a point, but what about Europe and the US, and recently even China? Apple's market share has been booming in the superpowers.

    @Synatiq said: Microsoft might make an ARM build of Windows, but who's gonna make the chips for those ODMs? Qualcomm is 2 years behind already, whilst being more expensive to license to ODMs in addition to purchasing cost. Apple has it all sorted in house, and wins the developers.

    This exists for Surface and RPi already and has for years

    Indeed, but it's still Qualcomm, Broadcom or Mediatek (doesn't work well on MTK yet). Neither one of which can even remotely get close to the performance of Apple chips. Even Linux, with the exception of few, struggles on existing ARM systems (QC/ MTK, Broadcom..).

  • hzrhzr Member, Moderator

    @Synatiq said: But you're making one mobile app that runs on iPhone, iPad and MacOS. Eventually, the gap will close.

    This is nearly identical for Android development, I don't see the point being made here. The same build will run on phones, tablets, and Chrome OS.

    @Synatiq said: Try making an Android app that works perfectly on two well specced Qualcomm and Mediatek systems. It's never the same result, always more time to spend.

    I have almost never seen this to be a major issue or a problem.

    Thanked by 1webcraft
  • SynatiqSynatiq Member, Provider
    edited June 24

    @hzr said:

    @Synatiq said: But you're making one mobile app that runs on iPhone, iPad and MacOS. Eventually, the gap will close.

    This is nearly identical for Android development, I don't see the point being made here. The same build will run on phones, tablets, and Chrome OS.

    @Synatiq said: Try making an Android app that works perfectly on two well specced Qualcomm and Mediatek systems. It's never the same result, always more time to spend.

    I have almost never seen this to be a major issue or a problem.

    I have, it's a pain to get certain apps behave the same between Qualcomm and Mediatek, and sometimes even on 2 different Qualcomm generations. The camera, native libraries missing, unexpected crashes for no reason on one system on a chip.

    I had one scenario where even the chip maker didn't know what was wrong for an entire build of Android to crash when combined with a specific app. Affected one chip model alone.

  • hzrhzr Member, Moderator

    @Synatiq said: I have, it's a pain to get certain apps behave the same between Qualcomm and Mediatek, and sometimes even on 2 different Qualcomm generations. The camera, native libraries missing, unexpected crashes for no reason on one system on a chip.

    I'd be interested in hearing more about this. I've worked on apps for both, involving heavy camera use/AR (you might have played some of them before outside during a few summers), using android.hardware.camera2, and haven't encountered major problem. Mediatek is usually pretty trashy when it comes to documentation and other stuff but not straight up crashing unless you're buying weird cheap SOCs from random vendors off Ali

    For what it's worth, I have two daily driver phones, one iPhone and one Android, and use both equally.

    Thanked by 1Synatiq
  • PwnerPwner Member

    @Synatiq said: Why should a developer bother making an app for Android and Windows / Linux while they could easily get it all done for the entire range of Apple devices? This was already a strength for Apple, but now it's a whole new level. Obviously, there are still Android developers, but from what I see, the Android app is always left secondary - only if absolutely necessary. At least for clients here in the UK. Again, why bother spending more efforts to make an app for one platform alone, which probably won't work the same on all Android phones, while Apple development is fully compatible with the entire product line-up?

    Because there's a whole separate opportunity of people willing to purchase software for their devices in a large market?

    @Synatiq said: As for Android, I wouldn't be surprised if Google drops it entirely in a few years. It is expensive to maintain as it is free at the moment, and their Pixel sales are pretty bad. At some point, they might want a profit, and they have a history for giving up on things.

    Yes, Google, the company that pays for new server farms on an annual basis to ensure that they can continue storing all of their searches instead of freeing up space by removing existing ones, is going to worry about the costs of maintaining an open source OS that allows them to help increase user adoption with mobile devices and successfully compete against Apple in that platform. Not to mention the revenue they generate from apps that are sold on their Google Play Store or the incredible amount of user data that they can monetize from people who are running Android. Yeah, Google is going to drop this and allow Apple to be the only dominant force in the mobile phone market.

    All Apple is doing is cutting out expenses to other companies for hardware. They'll have their own chips manufactured either in-house or in agreement with a company to build their branded chips on their behalf. This will result in Apple charging more for their devices because it'll be their own branded processor instead of Intel, and instead of Intel taking a piece of each sale for their processor in the system, it'll go back to Apple's pocket since it's their own processor.

    Thanked by 1webcraft
  • SynatiqSynatiq Member, Provider
    edited June 24

    @Pwner said:

    @Synatiq said: Why should a developer bother making an app for Android and Windows / Linux while they could easily get it all done for the entire range of Apple devices? This was already a strength for Apple, but now it's a whole new level. Obviously, there are still Android developers, but from what I see, the Android app is always left secondary - only if absolutely necessary. At least for clients here in the UK. Again, why bother spending more efforts to make an app for one platform alone, which probably won't work the same on all Android phones, while Apple development is fully compatible with the entire product line-up?

    Because there's a whole separate opportunity of people willing to purchase software for their devices in a large market?

    @Synatiq said: As for Android, I wouldn't be surprised if Google drops it entirely in a few years. It is expensive to maintain as it is free at the moment, and their Pixel sales are pretty bad. At some point, they might want a profit, and they have a history for giving up on things.

    Yes, Google, the company that pays for new server farms on an annual basis to ensure that they can continue storing all of their searches instead of freeing up space by removing existing ones, is going to worry about the costs of maintaining an open source OS that allows them to help increase user adoption with mobile devices and successfully compete against Apple in that platform. Not to mention the revenue they generate from apps that are sold on their Google Play Store or the incredible amount of user data that they can monetize from people who are running Android. Yeah, Google is going to drop this and allow Apple to be the only dominant force in the mobile phone market.

    All Apple is doing is cutting out expenses to other companies for hardware. They'll have their own chips manufactured either in-house or in agreement with a company to build their branded chips on their behalf. This will result in Apple charging more for their devices because it'll be their own branded processor instead of Intel, and instead of Intel taking a piece of each sale for their processor in the system, it'll go back to Apple's pocket since it's their own processor.

    Or you could pay the same amount for a flagship Android with 50% the silicon of the Apple chip whilst profiting the ODM, Qualcomm and the retailer.. for a 2 year security patched device.

    At the end of the profit chain, the consumer had lost the most, as they’ll need a new phone in 1-2 years.

    And don’t even get me started on the sealed displays all Android flagships have for a practically non-replaceable battery or screen.

  • jarjar Provider
    edited June 25

    @Synatiq said: What do you think will happen to Windows and Linux systems running intel and AMD chips if Apple's chips outperform them?

    I'm not totally convinced they will, at least not for a while. Granted, Intel is running with a handicap on a lot of CPUs thanks to vulnerability mitigations chipping away at performance. But I noticed that Apple's main point was to show that the CPU was adequate for reasonable tasks, and they did show that well, but I think they either skipped on the benchmarks because they weren't using a model that would actually be shipping to customers or they weren't impressive when compared to their current lineup. Time will tell. I'm sure they're adequate, I'll buy one, I'm just not sure they'll be competing for the top spot on benchmarks (like I care, I use more memory than CPU).

    Apple's performance tends to not just be tied to the raw CPU performance on paper, but in how they build their software around the CPUs they ship. By tightly controlling the hardware they're able to better tweak their software to perform with it, and it shows when you get a CPU that isn't great on paper and yet every one of their Pro apps runs incredibly well (my 12" 1.1GHz CoreM still runs like a beast and lags at almost no task). I don't expect others to desperately want to purchase their chips for other devices though, like Windows devices, unless Apple gives them a great deal.

    @Synatiq said: Why should a developer bother making an app for Android and Windows / Linux while they could easily get it all done for the entire range of Apple devices?

    You're still gonna have enough people on Windows and Android to be worth the investment, but you'll still have plenty of smaller devs more than happy to just live within the Apple ecosystem as we always have. I don't expect to see a shift there, personally.

    @Synatiq said: What does that mean for the datacenter?

    My guess is nothing, but you know, I could be wrong.

    The real question is, do I want my first ARM Mac to be an iMac or a MacBook? I'm thinking about iMac this round.

    Thanked by 2Synatiq Lee
  • jhjh Member
    edited June 25

    Apple has never really targeted hardware performance as a key selling point and they're still successfully selling laptops for £2k+. I don't see them investing huge amounts in performance to sell more laptops at the same price. I think their efforts will be focused on reducing their costs.

    I'm not an expert on the subject but AFAIK ARM chips offer a better performance/price ratio because of their smaller instruction set. Intuitively it seems like the gains will be smaller on systems running more complex software because they'll make more use of abstractions implemented in software to cope with the smaller instruction set... Again, not an expert so I could be way out. Also, obviously, Intel is a gravy train.

    Android is a separate issue. Google use it the same as they do their search engine - to collect data, push ads and sell their other services so as long as there are enough devices out there to make it worthwhile, they'll keep up development.

    Thanked by 2webcraft Synatiq
  • DylanDylan Member
    edited June 25

    Most software is developed by companies that want to make money. Those companies are not going to abandon Windows in favor of Mac OS, regardless of how easy it is to develop for, when Macs have less than 10% market share worldwide (and even in the US).

    The same goes for Android. Even in the US, iOS comes in second to Android (though it's a close race). But then you look worldwide, and the gap grows: iPhones have about a 20% global market share. You're not wrong that Android apps are often subpar in comparison to their iOS counterparts, but at this point it's only very small developers that don't publish apps for both OSes.

    Also, Google is not losing money on Android. We know this for a fact thanks to numbers that came out in the Oracle lawsuit but it should also be kind of obvious given that Google's core business is advertising and mobile advertising is, you know, huge today. The more people using Google's services, the more ads Google serves, and there's no better way to encourage people to use your services than for them to be the defaults on the most popular mobile OS in the world. If it weren't for Android Google would have to go back to paying (many) billions of dollars each year to device manufacturers to bundle its apps and use Google Search as a default.

    And that's all completely aside from the Play Store, which brings in billions every year on its own.

    Now, the Pixel line... that's something else. They seem committed for the time being, what with the recent news that their own long-awaited in-house chips could be out in Pixels next year, but long-term, who knows.

  • poissonpoisson Member

    Apple's goal is their profits. As a consumer, I have never bought a single Apple product because I can meet my needs with other products at half or less the asking price of Apple. Even if Apple can produce the most cutting edge chip that outperforms everyone else by a factor of three to five, you think Apple will cut prices to bring their technology to the masses?

    As long as the alternatives are sufficiently powerful to get the job done without any impact on usability, Apple will just remain a niche (albeit a sizeable one), and they have no intention of becoming mass market because it hurts their long-term ability to charge premium prices.

    I have no issues with Apple's technology, but I have failed to justify why I should buy an Apple when alternatives meet my needs at a fraction of the price, and face it, the bulk of the bell curve is still price sensitive.

    Deals and Reviews: LowEndBoxes Review | Avoid dodgy providers with The LEBRE Whitelist | Free hosting (with conditions): Evolution-Host, NanoKVM, FreeMach, ServedEZ | Follow latest deals on Twitter or Telegram

  • TLDR; LONG LIVE APPLE

    Thanked by 2doughnet ViridWeb
  • nbnnbn Member

    Try launching a complex app like photoshop or audio editing software on arm and let me know how that goes currently. I run a cluster of raspberry pi 4's for my business and they are hit/miss because app development hasn't universally accepted arm (raspi run armhf or arm64).

  • jarjar Provider
    edited June 25

    @nbn said: Try launching a complex app like photoshop or audio editing software on arm and let me know how that goes currently

    That's the kind of stuff they were showing off when demoing their new CPUs if you watched it. They've always made every device with the intent to perform those functions, it would be odd to assume that they're reversing that trend and lying about it just to leave Intel behind.

    Thanked by 1Lee
  • nbnnbn Member
    edited June 25

    @jar said:

    @nbn said: Try launching a complex app like photoshop or audio editing software on arm and let me know how that goes currently

    That's the kind of stuff they were showing off when demoing their new CPUs if you watched it. They've always made every device with the intent to perform those functions, it would be odd to assume that they're reversing that trend and lying about it just to leave Intel behind.

    Using an emulator so my point remains. Emulation isn't a good solution. You're gonna take a huge performance hit using an emulator. https://techcrunch.com/2020/06/22/apple-will-let-you-emulate-old-apps-and-run-ios-apps-on-arm-macs/

    When apple moved to intel based chips in 2005 most software was already running on x86. That is NOT the case with the move to ARM.

    Let the shitshow that will be app transition begin. Oh wait it already started https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/06/23/rosetta-lacks-support-for-x86-machine-virtualization-apps-boot-camp-not-an-option-on-apple-silicon

  • jarjar Provider
    edited June 25

    @nbn said:

    @jar said:

    @nbn said: Try launching a complex app like photoshop or audio editing software on arm and let me know how that goes currently

    That's the kind of stuff they were showing off when demoing their new CPUs if you watched it. They've always made every device with the intent to perform those functions, it would be odd to assume that they're reversing that trend and lying about it just to leave Intel behind.

    Using an emulator so my point remains. Emulation isn't a good solution. You're gonna take a huge performance hit using an emulator. https://techcrunch.com/2020/06/22/apple-will-let-you-emulate-old-apps-and-run-ios-apps-on-arm-macs/

    When apple moved to intel based chips in 2005 most software was already running on x86. That is NOT the case with the move to ARM.

    Let the shitshow that will be app transition begin. Oh wait it already started https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/06/23/rosetta-lacks-support-for-x86-machine-virtualization-apps-boot-camp-not-an-option-on-apple-silicon

    Either it does perform acceptably or they showed fake demos is my point. Lying that their new systems will perform well and showing fake demos of the apps performing fine would be one heck of an accusation. I’m doubting that they were bluffing that hard is all. I don’t think they’re spending the money on this transition to toss their brand in the garbage and put out systems that can’t do what they’re sold to do (audio, video, photo editing, etc). Maybe I’m wrong but if that’s your bet, I wouldn’t put money on it.

    Just a few months ago people were still laughing at AMD for thinking they could be in the server market. I wouldn’t rule ARM out as a functional contender for performing jobs they already are. Remember iOS devices (just as well as any reasonably high end android) can already edit video, audio, and photos at a fairly high level. They’ve been running ARM this whole time. Bonus points if the people overseeing the chip development are also making the software.

  • nbnnbn Member
    edited June 25

    @jar said:

    @nbn said:

    @jar said:

    @nbn said: Try launching a complex app like photoshop or audio editing software on arm and let me know how that goes currently

    That's the kind of stuff they were showing off when demoing their new CPUs if you watched it. They've always made every device with the intent to perform those functions, it would be odd to assume that they're reversing that trend and lying about it just to leave Intel behind.

    Using an emulator so my point remains. Emulation isn't a good solution. You're gonna take a huge performance hit using an emulator. https://techcrunch.com/2020/06/22/apple-will-let-you-emulate-old-apps-and-run-ios-apps-on-arm-macs/

    When apple moved to intel based chips in 2005 most software was already running on x86. That is NOT the case with the move to ARM.

    Let the shitshow that will be app transition begin. Oh wait it already started https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/06/23/rosetta-lacks-support-for-x86-machine-virtualization-apps-boot-camp-not-an-option-on-apple-silicon

    Either it does perform acceptably or they showed fake demos is my point. Lying that their new systems will perform well and showing fake demos of the apps performing fine would be one heck of an accusation. I’m doubting that they were bluffing that hard is all.

    I'm doubting they gave benchmarks (haven't watched it) and that you're able to accurately judge its performance from an apple company presentation

  • ViridWebViridWeb Member, Provider

    One thing I know for sure Apple will send you a thousand dollar bill even if your machine requires to tight a single screw

    ViridWeb.com - cPanel Web Hosting | Litespeed + SSH Access + Free Backups + Free Transfers.
    CIN: U72900WB2018OPC226882 | GST: 19AAGCV4976R1Z4

  • SynatiqSynatiq Member, Provider

    @ViridWeb said:
    One thing I know for sure Apple will send you a thousand dollar bill even if your machine requires to tight a single screw

    With the exception of their latest Mac Pro accessories, your source is the meme community.

    Apple has been selling a lot more repair parts than your average manufacturer. Try getting the screen or the battery of the latest Galaxies or OnePluses fixed. You’d need a cheap corner shop with heat guns to open up the display and put a fake screen back on. On the surface, all nice and shiny, but below, almost every Android maker cheaps out on design and leaves concerns like repairs unaddressed.

    So you can buy a new one with the next android version the year later. A manufacturer who doesn’t allow battery replacements doesn’t have longevity in mind.

    Thanked by 2jar Lee
  • ViridWebViridWeb Member, Provider
    edited June 25

    @Synatiq said:

    @ViridWeb said:
    One thing I know for sure Apple will send you a thousand dollar bill even if your machine requires to tight a single screw

    With the exception of their latest Mac Pro accessories, your source is the meme community.

    Apple has been selling a lot more repair parts than your average manufacturer. Try getting the screen or the battery of the latest Galaxies or OnePluses fixed. You’d need a cheap corner shop with heat guns to open up the display and put a fake screen back on. On the surface, all nice and shiny, but below, almost every Android maker cheaps out on design and leaves concerns like repairs unaddressed.

    So you can buy a new one with the next android version the year later. A manufacturer who doesn’t allow battery replacements doesn’t have longevity in mind.

    Thanks for your valuable information.

    Btw, I do not hate apple. Even I have one iPhone 7 and an old galaxy.

    I love the apple for providing better security than the android.

    So I'm an Iphone user

    But when it comes to repair. I feel cheated.
    The galaxy sceen cost me around $80 - $100 from a Samsung center. But Apple? :lol:

    So Love for a product is another thing and becoming a slave is another.

    Also, Yes you are right they have repair parts available. But they will force you to replace parts even if it's not broken. And that's a scam. At least for me

    And sure it's up to you how you will spends your money.

    "No one can wake you up when you sleeps with open eyes"

    Thanked by 1TheKiller

    ViridWeb.com - cPanel Web Hosting | Litespeed + SSH Access + Free Backups + Free Transfers.
    CIN: U72900WB2018OPC226882 | GST: 19AAGCV4976R1Z4

  • SynatiqSynatiq Member, Provider
    edited June 25

    @ViridWeb said:

    @Synatiq said:

    @ViridWeb said:
    One thing I know for sure Apple will send you a thousand dollar bill even if your machine requires to tight a single screw

    With the exception of their latest Mac Pro accessories, your source is the meme community.

    Apple has been selling a lot more repair parts than your average manufacturer. Try getting the screen or the battery of the latest Galaxies or OnePluses fixed. You’d need a cheap corner shop with heat guns to open up the display and put a fake screen back on. On the surface, all nice and shiny, but below, almost every Android maker cheaps out on design and leaves concerns like repairs unaddressed.

    So you can buy a new one with the next android version the year later. A manufacturer who doesn’t allow battery replacements doesn’t have longevity in mind.

    Thanks for your valuable information.

    Btw, I do not hate apple. Even I have one iPhone 7 and an old galaxy.

    I love the apple for providing better security than the android.

    So I'm an Iphone user

    But when it comes to repair. I feel cheated.
    The galaxy sceen cost me around $80 - $100 from a Samsung center. But Apple? :lol:

    So Love for a product is another thing and becoming a slave is another.

    Also, Yes you are right they have repair parts available. But they will force you to replace parts even if it's not broken. And that's a scam. At least for me

    And sure it's up to you how you will spends your money.

    "No one can wake you up when you sleeps with open eyes"

    Not that much difference, and I don't see many Samsung stores around.
    https://support.apple.com/en-gb/iphone/repair/service/screen-replacement
    https://www.samsung.com/uk/support/mobile-devices/how-much-will-it-cost-to-repair-my-phone-screen/

    I used to be an Apple tech 5-6 years ago, the only thing that felt scammy was when we had to replace the entire device (around 50% of the brand new cost https://support.apple.com/en-gb/iphone/repair/service) when the back camera is cracked. That one didn't make sense, and it voids the entire warranty for a tiny camera crack. Even if you had an unrelated problem, you'd pay for a full replacement.

    Besides that, however, service wasn't bad at all. Apple products are covered by the EU consumer law, so you can get unlimited free repairs in the first year, and after that a free repair for up to 5 years under EU laws assuming you didn't physically break anything yourself. A lot of other phone brands from the EU, including large UK retailers, don't honour this law at all.

    Try that with Samsung, but you might not want to as your Android updates will be left behind a year later.

    It's the little things that make a better experience, but the point of this thread was development, and how it affects other ecosystems.

  • LeeLee Member

    As @jar has mentioned, you are not going to see an Ax necessarily outperforming anything else on benchmarks. Not in the 1st couple anyway.

    But when you build a chip designed by you to run only on your hardware running only your software then you will find it will outperform any other chip in the same circumstances.

    But then you have so many other benefits it will bring to interoperability.

    The vast majority of Mac customers are going to love the benefits it brings.

    Thanked by 1jar
  • uuujiuuuji Member
    edited June 25

    I somewhat understand their point but it feels like it's a weird timeframe to announce that...
    I feel that they are making this decision at sometime late 2017 or early-mid 2018, when AMD were still getting their human waste together and outel was still adding plus marks on their 14nm nonstop. But now ryzen mobile are actually considerable on both power and performance, plus both AMD and outel are getting new ultra low power cpus in a year or two (AMD Van Gogh, Outel Gracemont), it feels somewhat weird to me to give up x86 at this current time ...
    imo moving to arm when most desktop app are x86(games for example, but uh gaming on a mac), plus not being able to emulate avx is just a bummer for me ...

  • SynatiqSynatiq Member, Provider
    edited June 25

    @Lee said:
    As @jar has mentioned, you are not going to see an Ax necessarily outperforming anything else on benchmarks. Not in the 1st couple anyway.

    But when you build a chip designed by you to run only on your hardware running only your software then you will find it will outperform any other chip in the same circumstances.

    But then you have so many other benefits it will bring to interoperability.

    The vast majority of Mac customers are going to love the benefits it brings.

    True, the cohesion between Apple software and hardware is a fact, but you also can't ignore the latest geekbench results on the iPad Pro in comparison to a lot of Windows laptops. And when you get down to the chip itself, you have a significantly larger amount of silicon in Apple chips compared to the next best (Qualcomm) Arm chips.

    Silicon is expensive, and Qualcomm and Samsung both need to make a profit. Apple only has themselves to fund, so they can afford to go all on. It's not just the fusion between hardware and software but also the fact that existing Apple chips are beefier. Now multiply that by 3-4, and you could potentially outperform most Intel CPU / AMD chips.

    This is why I am excited, but also a little concerned for how closed everything Apple is. It might hurt what I do, and others.

  • @jar said:
    Apple's performance tends to not just be tied to the raw CPU performance on paper, but in how they build their software around the CPUs they ship.

    I disagree. They've consistently got the best optimized arm chips made on latest CPU technology and constantly trade with Samsung on latest best performing arm CPU's each year. They are not software wizards (worst "multitasking" for years and years), at all. Having less features than Android does not make them software optimized like you're thinking.

  • @jar said:
    Just a few months ago people were still laughing at AMD for thinking they could be in the server market.

    Who? They've easily been seen as taking server market share from Intel for a couple years now. If anyone was laughing, they are on crack.

  • jarjar Provider
    edited June 25

    @TimboJones said:

    @jar said:
    Apple's performance tends to not just be tied to the raw CPU performance on paper, but in how they build their software around the CPUs they ship.

    I disagree. They've consistently got the best optimized arm chips made on latest CPU technology and constantly trade with Samsung on latest best performing arm CPU's each year. They are not software wizards (worst "multitasking" for years and years), at all. Having less features than Android does not make them software optimized like you're thinking.

    I don't think you're talking about the same thing I am. I'm looking more at the Mac than the iOS devices. They have a whole line of professional apps (think Final Cut Pro) that still perform unusually well even on the little Core M CPU I have on an old MacBook, that kind of real world experience on a CPU that is on paper as an under performer is exactly what I'm talking about. I'm fairly certain it stems from the fact that they shaped the laptop and the software to do the job, even though the CPU would be trash on a Windows laptop and pretty much is trash on paper (unless we're talking netbooks). Really highlights to me their ability to do more with less <3

    @TimboJones said:

    @jar said:
    Just a few months ago people were still laughing at AMD for thinking they could be in the server market.

    Who? They've easily been seen as taking server market share from Intel for a couple years now. If anyone was laughing, they are on crack.

    I'll avoid names but it's taken place as closely as LET ;)

    Thanked by 1Lee
  • DylanDylan Member

    @nbn said: Using an emulator so my point remains.

    Photoshop wasn't emulated. Adobe's bringing the whole CC suite (including Premiere) to ARM. That was the whole reason they showed it off during the presentation.

  • @Synatiq said:
    Being involved in product design and manufacturing, I just can't help but feel worried that this will slowly end every other CPU maker, and consequently the adopters of those vintage CPUs.

    Windows has 80+% market share in the market, about 90% Linux and windows combined, this will not affect CPU makers much as those 90% market is way more than what Apple could do. They have niche market.

    Mac share is tiny and cannot make much dent in market share even if they have efficient and powerful ARM cpu.

  • LeeLee Member

    @TheKiller said: Mac share is tiny and cannot make much dent in market

    Yes, it is a small share but the statistics speak for themselves, macOS has been growing yoy whilst Windows has been declining. Take account of Apple's market share in phones and tablets then it's easy to see how their market share on Mac could grow substantially if the get ARM Macs right. Interoperability improvements across devices being the key.

    It is not always about being the biggest, in Apple's case they don't need to be.

    Thanked by 1Synatiq
  • SynatiqSynatiq Member, Provider
    edited June 26

    @TheKiller said:

    @Synatiq said:
    Being involved in product design and manufacturing, I just can't help but feel worried that this will slowly end every other CPU maker, and consequently the adopters of those vintage CPUs.

    Windows has 80+% market share in the market, about 90% Linux and windows combined, this will not affect CPU makers much as those 90% market is way more than what Apple could do. They have niche market.

    Mac share is tiny and cannot make much dent in market share even if they have efficient and powerful ARM cpu.

    I am not just talking about PCs, but I have other Android phones in mind. Apple is just making it way too easy for consumers to choose these days. Add their fusion of Apple chips and Apple software, developers have a clear win.

    As for Android/PC market share, it has been declining, and it can be clearly seen by taking a walk down a train in London, or a university classroom :). PC and Android have a cost advantage in developing nations, especially now that a lot of phones are made in India, but low cost also justifies the lack of significant innovation.

    Times will tell.

  • @Lee said:

    @TheKiller said: Mac share is tiny and cannot make much dent in market

    Yes, it is a small share but the statistics speak for themselves, macOS has been growing yoy whilst Windows has been declining. Take account of Apple's market share in phones and tablets then it's easy to see how their market share on Mac could grow substantially if the get ARM Macs right. Interoperability improvements across devices being the key.

    It is not always about being the biggest, in Apple's case they don't need to be.

    Haha, check stats and you will see in past one year how much Windows has grown. PC shipments increased.

  • SynatiqSynatiq Member, Provider

    @TheKiller said:

    @Lee said:

    @TheKiller said: Mac share is tiny and cannot make much dent in market

    Yes, it is a small share but the statistics speak for themselves, macOS has been growing yoy whilst Windows has been declining. Take account of Apple's market share in phones and tablets then it's easy to see how their market share on Mac could grow substantially if the get ARM Macs right. Interoperability improvements across devices being the key.

    It is not always about being the biggest, in Apple's case they don't need to be.

    Haha, check stats and you will see in past one year how much Windows has grown. PC shipments increased.

    I am not surprised, with all the weird new $200 Windows 10 laptops. They'd make a compelling choice for students, or in countries with a lower GDP per capita.

  • @Synatiq said:

    @TheKiller said:

    @Lee said:

    @TheKiller said: Mac share is tiny and cannot make much dent in market

    Yes, it is a small share but the statistics speak for themselves, macOS has been growing yoy whilst Windows has been declining. Take account of Apple's market share in phones and tablets then it's easy to see how their market share on Mac could grow substantially if the get ARM Macs right. Interoperability improvements across devices being the key.

    It is not always about being the biggest, in Apple's case they don't need to be.

    Haha, check stats and you will see in past one year how much Windows has grown. PC shipments increased.

    I am not surprised, with all the weird new $200 Windows 10 laptops. They'd make a compelling choice for students, or in countries with a lower GDP per capita.

    That's not the argument, what I'm saying is that Windows will mostly remain on Intel or AMD processors. So there is no way Apple adopting their own chip making those chip makers go away.

    FYI, almost every office, airports, tv channels, factories, even those factories assembling iPhone and Mac are using windows.

  • LeeLee Member

    @TheKiller said: Haha, check stats and you will see in past one year how much Windows has grown. PC shipments increased.

    Shipments != Market Share

    But anyway, this thread is going to descend into a LET special so I will leave it there.

    Thanked by 2Synatiq jar
  • @Lee said:

    @TheKiller said: Haha, check stats and you will see in past one year how much Windows has grown. PC shipments increased.

    Shipments != Market Share

    But anyway, this thread is going to descend into a LET special so I will leave it there.

    With every shipment, there is windows license and an Intel or AMD processor.

  • ViridWebViridWeb Member, Provider
    edited June 26

    @Synatiq said:

    @TheKiller said:

    @Synatiq said:
    Being involved in product design and manufacturing, I just can't help but feel worried that this will slowly end every other CPU maker, and consequently the adopters of those vintage CPUs.

    Windows has 80+% market share in the market, about 90% Linux and windows combined, this will not affect CPU makers much as those 90% market is way more than what Apple could do. They have niche market.

    Mac share is tiny and cannot make much dent in market share even if they have efficient and powerful ARM cpu.

    I am not just talking about PCs, but I have other Android phones in mind. Apple is just making it way too easy for consumers to choose these days. Add their fusion of Apple chips and Apple software, developers have a clear win.

    As for Android/PC market share, it has been declining, and it can be clearly seen by taking a walk down a train in London, or a university classroom :). PC and Android have a cost advantage in developing nations, especially now that a lot of phones are made in India, but low cost also justifies the lack of significant innovation.

    Times will tell.

    Innovation!!?? Really??
    By repackaging the device after increasing length is innovation?

    BTW, why user will pay $$$ extra for a feature which they never use or need to?

    It's called commonsense to pay for something they really needs in their daily life.

    If a $500 device can fulfill their require task then it's not make any sense to pay $1500 for a overhype device.

    @Lee said:

    @TheKiller said: Haha, check stats and you will see in past one year how much Windows has grown. PC shipments increased.

    Shipments != Market Share

    But anyway, this thread is going to descend into a LET special so I will leave it there.

    Now this post became an advertisement of Apple
    Even by claiming Lowend Windows only for poor countries

    For my understanding peoples from lower gdp countries have better understanding of value for money

    ViridWeb.com - cPanel Web Hosting | Litespeed + SSH Access + Free Backups + Free Transfers.
    CIN: U72900WB2018OPC226882 | GST: 19AAGCV4976R1Z4

  • SynatiqSynatiq Member, Provider
    edited June 26

    @ViridWeb said:

    @Synatiq said:

    @TheKiller said:

    @Synatiq said:
    Being involved in product design and manufacturing, I just can't help but feel worried that this will slowly end every other CPU maker, and consequently the adopters of those vintage CPUs.

    Windows has 80+% market share in the market, about 90% Linux and windows combined, this will not affect CPU makers much as those 90% market is way more than what Apple could do. They have niche market.

    Mac share is tiny and cannot make much dent in market share even if they have efficient and powerful ARM cpu.

    I am not just talking about PCs, but I have other Android phones in mind. Apple is just making it way too easy for consumers to choose these days. Add their fusion of Apple chips and Apple software, developers have a clear win.

    As for Android/PC market share, it has been declining, and it can be clearly seen by taking a walk down a train in London, or a university classroom :). PC and Android have a cost advantage in developing nations, especially now that a lot of phones are made in India, but low cost also justifies the lack of significant innovation.

    Times will tell.

    Innovation!!?? Really??
    By repackaging the device after increasing length is innovation?

    BTW, why user will pay $$$ extra for a feature which they never use or need to?

    It's called commonsense to pay for something they really needs in their daily life.

    If a $500 device can fulfill their require task then it's not make any sense to pay $1500 for a overhype device.

    @Lee said:

    @TheKiller said: Haha, check stats and you will see in past one year how much Windows has grown. PC shipments increased.

    Shipments != Market Share

    But anyway, this thread is going to descend into a LET special so I will leave it there.

    Now this post became an advertisement of Apple
    Even by claiming Lowend Windows only for poor countries

    For my understanding peoples from lower gdp countries have better understanding of value for money

    Obviously, everyone is allowed to have their own preferences. No one is saying a $500 laptop is bad when that's all you need. But it's also very short sighted not to recognise the strengths of other brands, especially disregarding the innovation that Apple consistently pushes every year.

    Yeah, the MacBook feels a bit old fashion, and I wish there was a similar product like the Surface Book, but seriously, just, no..

    When you pull out a Windows laptop in an investor meeting trying to run a presentation and your laptop wakes up with "1 out of 11 updates applied" message, then we speak. It's the little things completely against productivity and speed which is important when you work for 5 companies..

  • @TheKiller said:

    @Synatiq said:

    @TheKiller said:

    @Lee said:

    @TheKiller said: Mac share is tiny and cannot make much dent in market

    Yes, it is a small share but the statistics speak for themselves, macOS has been growing yoy whilst Windows has been declining. Take account of Apple's market share in phones and tablets then it's easy to see how their market share on Mac could grow substantially if the get ARM Macs right. Interoperability improvements across devices being the key.

    It is not always about being the biggest, in Apple's case they don't need to be.

    Haha, check stats and you will see in past one year how much Windows has grown. PC shipments increased.

    I am not surprised, with all the weird new $200 Windows 10 laptops. They'd make a compelling choice for students, or in countries with a lower GDP per capita.

    That's not the argument, what I'm saying is that Windows will mostly remain on Intel or AMD processors. So there is no way Apple adopting their own chip making those chip makers go away.

    FYI, almost every office, airports, tv channels, factories, even those factories assembling iPhone and Mac are using windows.

    Intel, having the largest consumer market share, will only lose to AMD and ARM chip makers for years to come. Samsung is getting in the game with ARM laptops that'll get better at a decent rate each generation. ARM can't do the super high end stuff, the 64/128 core $50k stuff Apple will need to continue to buy from Intel (or switch to Epyc) for at least another 4 years.

  • yokowasisyokowasis Member
    edited June 27

    Your logic is flawed. Android user more, wayyyyyy more than those of ios. Android marketshare is almost three times that of IOS. The same goes for Windows vs Mac.

    If developer want to make their apps available for most users, they will develop for android. Also developing on android is cheaper. You don't have to use mac and it's pay once forever, instead of anually for ios.

    Perhaps developing on ios is easier, that's the only reason, I can think of why developer develop for ios first.

    Windows / Android isn't goind anywhere soon. It would be stupid abandoning 70% of marketshare

  • SynatiqSynatiq Member, Provider
    edited June 27

    @yokowasis said
    Perhaps developing on ios is easier, that's the only reason, I can think of why developer develop for ios first.

    It’s to do with the market share of Apple in Western Europe and North America. In other countries, developing for Android first would make perfect sense. The quality and majority of apps on the Apple App Store speaks by itself.

    As for Android phones, just because more of them exist, doesn’t mean they’re better. I was considering the smart phone business - you can make semi-decent Mediatek smartphones at $90 cost per unit. The industry standard is “cost equals 1/3 of RRP“. It’s very rewarding.

    Look at all the Ford Fiesta’s outside. Not many Tesla’s out there though.

    Again, my point is, now that Apple claims to be making better chips than Intel, their products will be profoundly different in terms of cooling, performance, developer resources. Up until now, they only made the fastest smartphone chips, but now they claim to be doing the same for desktop. This could change everything, as LinusTechTips himself said even though he doesn’t like Apple.

    So far, Windows lacks any chip maker that exceeds Qualcomm chips, and Apples mobile chips are already a few years ahead of them. Think what their desktop class ARM chips will be like.

    The other thing, which most consumers don't know, is the cost to license and purchase Qualcomm chips. They're not cheap at all. In some cases they equal 60-70% of the manufacturing cost of the device running them. This is bad for consumers. It's really bad when a manufacturer has to compromise on other things in order to fit a chip that's half as fast as the current Apple chip. By getting a Qualcomm phone, which are the fastest Androids, you are compromising on other things including future support (because Google patches are first released to the SoC maker), just to allow the ODM to breakeven while you fund multiple levels of companies in the background.

    Apple products don't need to deal with any of that when production cost for parts / chips is controlled by Apple themselves.

  • TimboJonesTimboJones Member
    edited June 28

    @Synatiq said:

    @yokowasis said
    Perhaps developing on ios is easier, that's the only reason, I can think of why developer develop for ios first.

    It’s to do with the market share of Apple in Western Europe and North America. In other countries, developing for Android first would make perfect sense. The quality and majority of apps on the Apple App Store speaks by itself.

    As for Android phones, just because more of them exist, doesn’t mean they’re better. I was considering the smart phone business - you can make semi-decent Mediatek smartphones at $90 cost per unit. The industry standard is “cost equals 1/3 of RRP“. It’s very rewarding.

    Look at all the Ford Fiesta’s outside. Not many Tesla’s out there though.

    Again, my point is, now that Apple claims to be making better chips than Intel, their products will be profoundly different in terms of cooling, performance, developer resources. Up until now, they only made the fastest smartphone chips, but now they claim to be doing the same for desktop. This could change everything, as LinusTechTips himself said even though he doesn’t like Apple.

    So far, Windows lacks any chip maker that exceeds Qualcomm chips, and Apples mobile chips are already a few years ahead of them. Think what their desktop class ARM chips will be like.

    What? Apple chips are NOT years ahead of Samsung. You are grossly misinformed or big Apple Kool-Aid drinker.

    The other thing, which most consumers don't know, is the cost to license and purchase Qualcomm chips. They're not cheap at all. In some cases they equal 60-70% of the manufacturing cost of the device running them. This is bad for consumers.

    Bullshit. Source?

    It's really bad when a manufacturer has to compromise on other things in order to fit a chip that's half as fast as the current Apple chip.

    What? Manufacturers have a choice between paying $$$ for latest gen CPU and a budget version.

    Apple has the largest margins out of anyone, so they're the ones taking advantage and not providing value that other manufacturers are.

    By getting a Qualcomm phone, which are the fastest Androids, you are compromising on other things including future support (because Google patches are first released to the SoC maker), just to allow the ODM to breakeven while you fund multiple levels of companies in the background.

    What? First of all, Google/Android drivers and support will only get better, as they move to separate the OS and device specific drivers so OS can be updated outside of manufacturers. What your point should have been was that an Apple phone compromises whenever it lacks Qualcomm features. That's fact.

    Apple products don't need to deal with any of that when production cost for parts / chips is controlled by Apple themselves.

    What? Do you mean price fixing, which Apple has done several times in several industries? Apple doesn't make their own parts, they contract every single thing including fabricating their chips. Samsung builds more Apple parts than Apple. Remember, Apple shit is "designed in California".

  • @Synatiq said:

    @yokowasis said
    Perhaps developing on ios is easier, that's the only reason, I can think of why developer develop for ios first.

    It’s to do with the market share of Apple in Western Europe and North America.

    Not really true. In North America it's 50:50, but in Europe android left apple in the dust with 70%

    The point still valid. Android and Windows still the biggest os on earth. Because they can be installed on pretty much anything. Even a toaster.

    Just because Apple has a better hardware / os. Doesn't make the other suddenly dead. Windows / android is targeting different demographic than those of Apple. They won't go anywhere soon.

  • SynatiqSynatiq Member, Provider
    edited June 28

    @TimboJones said:

    @Synatiq said:

    @yokowasis said
    Perhaps developing on ios is easier, that's the only reason, I can think of why developer develop for ios first.

    It’s to do with the market share of Apple in Western Europe and North America. In other countries, developing for Android first would make perfect sense. The quality and majority of apps on the Apple App Store speaks by itself.

    As for Android phones, just because more of them exist, doesn’t mean they’re better. I was considering the smart phone business - you can make semi-decent Mediatek smartphones at $90 cost per unit. The industry standard is “cost equals 1/3 of RRP“. It’s very rewarding.

    Look at all the Ford Fiesta’s outside. Not many Tesla’s out there though.

    Again, my point is, now that Apple claims to be making better chips than Intel, their products will be profoundly different in terms of cooling, performance, developer resources. Up until now, they only made the fastest smartphone chips, but now they claim to be doing the same for desktop. This could change everything, as LinusTechTips himself said even though he doesn’t like Apple.

    So far, Windows lacks any chip maker that exceeds Qualcomm chips, and Apples mobile chips are already a few years ahead of them. Think what their desktop class ARM chips will be like.

    What? Apple chips are NOT years ahead of Samsung. You are grossly misinformed or big Apple Kool-Aid drinker.

    Hurts coming from a channel in support of Android, doesn't it?

    Or you could get the necessary equipment and count the transistors yourself.

    The other thing, which most consumers don't know, is the cost to license and purchase Qualcomm chips. They're not cheap at all. In some cases they equal 60-70% of the manufacturing cost of the device running them. This is bad for consumers.

    Bullshit. Source?

    Contact any Chinese ODM to confirm this for you. I've worked with a few myself. Ask specifically for pre-agreement licensing. You can't just buy a Qualcomm chip, you need to license it first, and it's not cheap. It's not cheap after it's licensed too. I've worked with a few myself.

    It's really bad when a manufacturer has to compromise on other things in order to fit a chip that's half as fast as the current Apple chip.

    What? Manufacturers have a choice between paying $$$ for latest gen CPU and a budget version.

    Apple has the largest margins out of anyone, so they're the ones taking advantage and not providing value that other manufacturers are.

    You really need to do your research before following the meme community or your own desires to mock the premium. As Gary in the video above mentioned, it is a different business model. With Android, you profit everyone at Qualcomm, and then at Samsung, but you sacrifice approximately half the performance so they can all breakeven.

    Now that Apple and Android pricing is the same on the high end, you really need to think who provides better value. That's why Apple dominates the high-end market.

    By getting a Qualcomm phone, which are the fastest Androids, you are compromising on other things including future support (because Google patches are first released to the SoC maker), just to allow the ODM to breakeven while you fund multiple levels of companies in the background.

    What? First of all, Google/Android drivers and support will only get better, as they move to separate the OS and device specific drivers so OS can be updated outside of manufacturers. What your point should have been was that an Apple phone compromises whenever it lacks Qualcomm features. That's fact.

    Apple products don't need to deal with any of that when production cost for parts / chips is controlled by Apple themselves.

    What? Do you mean price fixing, which Apple has done several times in several industries? Apple doesn't make their own parts, they contract every single thing including fabricating their chips. Samsung builds more Apple parts than Apple. Remember, Apple shit is "designed in California".

    This is like saying the contractor making a building is the one who designed it. Huge difference.

    This is about the future of chips and platforms using them. Apple Silicon will forever change chip makers and software. Like it or not.

    And it's not like there's a difference in end user pricing anymore. Samsung, Google and Apple all have lower end and premium lineups matching each others prices.

  • @Synatiq said:

    @TimboJones said:

    @Synatiq said:

    @yokowasis said
    Perhaps developing on ios is easier, that's the only reason, I can think of why developer develop for ios first.

    It’s to do with the market share of Apple in Western Europe and North America. In other countries, developing for Android first would make perfect sense. The quality and majority of apps on the Apple App Store speaks by itself.

    As for Android phones, just because more of them exist, doesn’t mean they’re better. I was considering the smart phone business - you can make semi-decent Mediatek smartphones at $90 cost per unit. The industry standard is “cost equals 1/3 of RRP“. It’s very rewarding.

    Look at all the Ford Fiesta’s outside. Not many Tesla’s out there though.

    Again, my point is, now that Apple claims to be making better chips than Intel, their products will be profoundly different in terms of cooling, performance, developer resources. Up until now, they only made the fastest smartphone chips, but now they claim to be doing the same for desktop. This could change everything, as LinusTechTips himself said even though he doesn’t like Apple.

    So far, Windows lacks any chip maker that exceeds Qualcomm chips, and Apples mobile chips are already a few years ahead of them. Think what their desktop class ARM chips will be like.

    What? Apple chips are NOT years ahead of Samsung. You are grossly misinformed or big Apple Kool-Aid drinker.

    Hurts coming from a channel in support of Android, doesn't it?

    Or you could get the necessary equipment and count the transistors yourself.

    Jesus fuck, did you just provide a video from some random dude as a source rather than benchmarks?

    The other thing, which most consumers don't know, is the cost to license and purchase Qualcomm chips. They're not cheap at all. In some cases they equal 60-70% of the manufacturing cost of the device running them. This is bad for consumers.

    Bullshit. Source?

    Contact any Chinese ODM to confirm this for you. I've worked with a few myself. Ask specifically for pre-agreement licensing. You can't just buy a Qualcomm chip, you need to license it first, and it's not cheap. It's not cheap after it's licensed too. I've worked with a few myself.

    Again, all this shit is known from Samsung and Apple lawsuits going back years. Why say shit like this without being informed?

    I've actually signed a Qualcomm licensing agreement at a previous job and were Qualcomm licensed for something like 10 years. I know what seems like a lot of money to you, is actually very little when you're a big player (we weren't). Having access to technology before the market, reference designs, access to engineers, etc, all cost money and have value above paying for commodity chips.

    It's really bad when a manufacturer has to compromise on other things in order to fit a chip that's half as fast as the current Apple chip.

    What? Manufacturers have a choice between paying $$$ for latest gen CPU and a budget version.

    Apple has the largest margins out of anyone, so they're the ones taking advantage and not providing value that other manufacturers are.

    You really need to do your research before following the meme community or your own desires to mock the premium. As Gary in the video above mentioned, it is a different business model. With Android, you profit everyone at Qualcomm, and then at Samsung, but you sacrifice approximately half the performance so they can all breakeven.

    What? Again, don't know Gary, don't give a fuck. Apple margins are public knowledge. You also are under some weird belief Qualcomm and Samsung makes money on every Android, despite the fact there's like 50+ Android mfg's, several CPU makers, and the whole fucking thing is open, compared to single market Apple. What is this sacrificed performance shit you're going on? Samsung has a reputation for cheating to increase performance, Apple has the reputation for intentionally sacrificing performance at the expense of the customer.

    Now that Apple and Android pricing is the same on the high end, you really need to think who provides better value. That's why Apple dominates the high-end market.

    By getting a Qualcomm phone, which are the fastest Androids, you are compromising on other things including future support (because Google patches are first released to the SoC maker), just to allow the ODM to breakeven while you fund multiple levels of companies in the background.

    What? First of all, Google/Android drivers and support will only get better, as they move to separate the OS and device specific drivers so OS can be updated outside of manufacturers. What your point should have been was that an Apple phone compromises whenever it lacks Qualcomm features. That's fact.

    Apple products don't need to deal with any of that when production cost for parts / chips is controlled by Apple themselves.

    What? Do you mean price fixing, which Apple has done several times in several industries? Apple doesn't make their own parts, they contract every single thing including fabricating their chips. Samsung builds more Apple parts than Apple. Remember, Apple shit is "designed in California".

    This is like saying the contractor making a building is the one who designed it. Huge difference.

    No, it's not. You totally failed to see my point. Apple needs other companies to make every single thing they sell. Samsung doesn't, they actually make the goods they sell. Samsung owns their own foundries to build their chips. Apple needs to purchase foundry time years in advance. Apple doesn't own the CPU technology, Samsung and other foundry's do.

    This is about the future of chips and platforms using them. Apple Silicon will forever change chip makers and software. Like it or not.

    Well yes, but I never said otherwise.

    And it's not like there's a difference in end user pricing anymore. Samsung, Google and Apple all have lower end and premium lineups matching each others prices.

    My whole point was Apple arm chips are not going to be beating Intel desktop chips in price or performance anytime soon, let alone think Apple's ARM chips are "years ahead", and they most certainly are not.

  • jsgjsg Member
    edited June 29

    @Synatiq said:
    What are your thoughts about Apple's latest announcements?

    'shrug'

    1. What do you think will happen to Windows and Linux systems running intel and AMD chips if Apple's chips outperform them?
    • (a) a quite theoretical question - reason: I yet have to see them having a Arm CPU that outperforms x86-64. reason 2: Even if they had such a CPU there will soon be competitors with faster CPUs. Do not underestimate how quickly that segment moves.
    • (b) next to nothing. Simple reason: Apples market share is next to insignificant.

    Apple's chips are typically 2-3 years ahead of Qualcomm and Mediatek,

    Evidence?

    and Qualcomm chips aren't cheap at all. They already perform faster, cooler, more efficiently than a lot of Windows laptops - imagine a beefed-up Apple desktop CPU.

    I'm not sure that you really know and understand that market segment. Hint: Linus or some gamers rig is NOT relevant nor is it the ruler along which that market measures.

    An Arm processor is an Arm processor, no matter how much you optimize it (and the same goes for x86). The Arm's strengths are performance/Watt and that it has less ugly history baggage than X86.

    Also do not overlook the fact that there are always two sides. Yes, Arm managed to break the "all halfway reasonable desktops are x86 based" monopoly, which btw. is to do with Microsoft too, and maybe more, than with x86. But that also means that intel could come up with a new baggage free architecture. And anyway Microsoft could come up with a Windows for Arm (they have quite a bit of experience in that field already).

    1. Why should a developer bother making an app for Android and Windows / Linux while they could easily get it all done for the entire range of Apple devices?

    How about "because the Windows market is massively larger than the Apple market", which to make it worse also is quite tightly controlled.

    This was already a strength for Apple, but now it's a whole new level. Obviously, there are still Android developers, but from what I see, the Android app is always left secondary - only if absolutely necessary.

    Well, I am a developer and as a matter of fact I like neither Android nor the Apples OSs but when I include a mobile target in some project it's always Android; I do not and will not develop for Apple targets.

    At least for clients here in the UK. Again, why bother spending more efforts to make an app for one platform alone, which probably won't work the same on all Android phones, while Apple development is fully compatible with the entire product line-up?

    Pardon me but it seems you've got it wrong. It is the Apple OSs that are the exotic target. To make an application for Unix/linux and Windows is relatively easy to do. Android is a quite different thing, but can be included with some extra efforts. Including Apple OSs in the target list however f_cks everything up. That's one of the reasons I don't touch that.

    1. What does that mean for the datacenter?

    Virtually nothing. Apple is a non-entity in data centers (except for some designer and/or yuppie weirdos)

    Otherwise Arm actually is an increasingly attractive DC architecture. But that's usually not about "outperforming X86" but rather about same performance, less energy costs and/or about many cores.

    This is great news for the consumer, but I can't help but feel like it will hurt everyone else - chipmakers, PC makers, Windows, the Linux community.. Inevitably, it will bite everyone's ass.

    Frankly, it seems to me that you very very much overestimate Apples significance.
    For a start: what is a chipmaker? One who designs chips? Those are a dime a dozen. Or one who actually fabricates chips? Those are relatively few - and Apple is not one of them.
    About the only mingling I see in the real world are linux users with Apple notebooks because they think their build quality is so good (can't judge that, never had an Apple product).

    LinusTechTips with his 256GB Ram desktop machines is now considered low-end compared to iJustine's 1.5TB Ram Mac Pro.

    By WHOM? I can assure you that the vast majority of real engineers don't care at all about Linus, iJustine and the likes. Actually we even don't know about most of them.
    And btw. the actually real world market is not about the extremes. That whole Linus tech tips and similar segments reminds me about TV shows about Lamborghinis and Rolls Royces; people love to watch that ... but they (continue to) drive a VW or a Peugeot.

    Being involved in product design and manufacturing, I just can't help but feel worried that this will slowly end every other CPU maker, and consequently the adopters of those vintage CPUs.

    Pardon me but what have you been smoking?

    Microsoft might make an ARM build of Windows, but who's gonna make the chips for those ODMs? Qualcomm is 2 years behind already, whilst being more expensive to license to ODMs in addition to purchasing cost. Apple has it all sorted in house, and wins the developers.

    Your whole story is based on the very unlikely case that Apple somehow manages to continually for quite some period of time have a processor that is way faster and better than all others. (a) I would not even risk betting more than 10 cents on Apple having the fastest and best processor at all, let alone for a not insignificant period of time. (b) THE decisive ingredients in that field are lots of money, lots of experience, and a few exceptional engineers. Apple is not the only party having money and good engineers and they do not (yet) have lots of experience.

    Oh and btw, Qualcomm makes a lot of noise but actually is not (or rather rarely and fora short period of time) leading the field of processors. Do not take smartphone processor reviews to have general significance.

    But as you seem to like being worried, let me offer something that might (and I think will) really upend at least part of the playing field: SMIC, the major chinese fab is currently ramping up their 14 nm production capacity from 100000 wafers per month(!!) to double of that. Now, 14 nm might sound boring but keep in mind that (a) 14 nm is intels current gate size in actualy production, (b) very many products do not need 12, 10 or 7 nm, and (c) SMIC isn't sleeping either.
    From what I see that translates to major shifts in the chip and processor market in the next few years.

    Thanked by 1TimboJones

    Thanks no.

  • yokowasisyokowasis Member
    edited June 29

    @jsg said:
    And anyway Microsoft could come up with a Windows for Arm (they have quite a bit of experience in that field already).

    It's not a matter of could. They already did. Microsoft + Qualcomm has already have their product rolled out last year. It's called always connected PC. Whereas apple only just announce it a few weeks ago.

    https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/store/b/always-connected-pcs

    Of course non native apps will still have to run trough some kind of emulator.

    Thanked by 1jsg
  • jarjar Provider
    edited June 29

    https://www.macrumors.com/2020/06/29/apple-rosetta-2-a12z-beats-surface-pro-x/

    Interesting stuff. Rosetta 2 just might be as high performing as they suggested in their demos during the event.

    TLDR:

Sign In or Register to comment.