Howdy, Stranger!

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


Apple Silicon - Page 2
New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.

All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.

Apple Silicon

2»

Comments

  • SynatiqSynatiq Member
    edited June 2020

    @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.

  • @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 Veteran

    @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, Host Rep
    edited June 2020

    @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

  • SynatiqSynatiq Member
    edited June 2020

    @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 2020

    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
    edited June 2020

    @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 2020

    @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
    edited June 2020

    @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, Resident Benchmarker
    edited June 2020

    @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
  • yokowasisyokowasis Member
    edited June 2020

    @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 Patron Provider, Top Host, Veteran
    edited June 2020

    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.