Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Threatened to Abandon Intel Chips over Power Consumption
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I do agree with this. No one is ripping movies or converting them, and the average Joe uses half of their CPU's power on a "high-performance need" day. Consumers want battery life.
Why are you people so against the ARM switch?
Apple is obliviously not going to move unless they are up to par. If next year, ARM was to provide processors better than intel's in both power and performance, Why wouldn't apple switch over?
We are talking about the future here, anything is possible.
Apple is obliviously not going to move unless they are up to par. If next year, ARM was to provide processors better than intel's in both power and performance, Why wouldn't apple switch over?
We are talking about the future here, anything is possible.
What I find very interesting is the power Apple has to force this issue. You also point out something else about Apple they are very, very demanding. Which is from the consumer point of view makes for excellent products with no compromises that effect performance, or quality. Being a hamradio operator I into electronics from vacuum tubes to the present surface mount stuff. The innards of Apple products are as beautiful as their outsides, they are in fact engineered like like old console radios of the late 1930's. The size is vastly different, of course, but the care in the engineering is the same.
Yup
Wouldn't surprise me to see ARM in Macs. I wouldn't care if they are more powerful than the current offerings, probably unlikely though. If they switch to ARM and drop their "professional" apps its over for me. I bought a Mac last year because of their reliability and lack of issues when it comes to recording. I've been building PC's for 7 years, i'll go right back to Intel/AMD x86/x64 when or if Apple switches. There's no need to pay more for junk. Don't get me wrong, i would still buy their gadgets cause it makes sense to use ARM on them. And like i said, if ARM is powerful enough, software made the transition, and apple doesn't abandon pro apps, i'll still look foward to buying another Mac.
Wouldn't surprise me to see ARM in Macs. I wouldn't care if they are more powerful than the current offerings, probably unlikely though. If they switch to ARM and drop their "professional" apps its over for me. I bought a Mac last year because of their reliability and lack of issues when it comes to recording. I've been building PC's for 7 years, i'll go right back to Intel/AMD x86/x64 when or if Apple switches. There's no need to pay more for junk. Don't get me wrong, i would still buy their gadgets cause it makes sense to use ARM on them. And like i said, if ARM is powerful enough, software made the transition, and apple doesn't abandon pro apps, i'll still look foward to buying another Mac.
Last edited:
Those who know something about CPU design understand all too well that ARM to Intel CPUs is like small Suzuki cars (low gasoline consumption) to BMWs. While BWM can easily produce high gas mileage car, Suzuki can not produce a good car. Same is true for Intel and ARM.
All five of them?
Don't you just think that Apple meant not using Intel chips for the MacBook Air and not switching to ARM processors on all their other computers? Certainly Apple wouldn't be using a ARM-powered Mac Pro. At least with Apple pushing Intel to design lower power chips, it's a win for the entire computer industry. Better battery life, lighter and thinner designs will benefit everyone, manufacturers and consumers alike. It might have a tendency to drive costs up at first, but I think it's worth it in the long run.
I agree 100%..my notebook is for go..my desktop is for tough stuff....give me iPad battery life in a notebook and lets boogie..
On September 8, 2007 I uttered:
http://communities.intel.com/thread/1111
http://communities.intel.com/thread/1111
Rocketman on Intel forum said:
The two things I am curious about is is the 64bit ARM ISA yet, and in order for ARM to have performance equal to Intel, what are the tradeoffs.
Yeah but Suzuki, does not have the largest company in the world buying for them and willing to invest in them to make these 'Cars' that Apple needs in order to have all their systems running on the same processor.
On the why intel should care point... Apple is the very few PC makers with a growth in market share.
That is actually a really great point. I am more likely to hear someone complain about a dead, or dying battery, than I am about how slow a given phone is (Android or iOS).
A fast phone with a 10 minute battery is worth less than a decently quick phone that can last 24+ hours, for many people. ((ok that example is a bit extreme ))
I too appreciate (perhaps as a fellow HAM
) the internal workings and industrial design you mention in your post. I think it is good that they try (in their own way) to take good care of their customers, by attempting to provide the best possible all around experience. The overall integration, and compatibility of all Apple Hardware, with other Apple products is a nice feature that many take for granted, or forget at times.
Apple holds considerable away over Intel in terms of selling a premium product and being able to pay higher prices and demand better performance than the $299 PC makers who have to take what is left. Go through any airport and you will see PC users in a dirty corner on the floor where there is an outlet available. Mac users are not out hunting electrons. This difference creates a huge psychological advantage for Apple and I must say I enjoy sitting in a chair instead of on the grubby floor.
That said, Apple's window for abandoning OS X and moving to iOS closed some time ago. Apple now owns the high end of the computer market. When the switch was made to Intel chips, Apple had about 4% of the market and many were loyal hobbyists who were willing to move as Apple moved. Today with 12%, many customers are serious business users who are not to be trifled with. Just as Microsoft is now trapped within the constraints of Windows 95 which remain a part of Windows-Whatever today, Apple is stuck with its hardware architecture choices which were made in 2006. On the plus side, OS X is far more flexible than Windows, but I just don't see Apple making the killer mistake of forcing a change of all software just when they have market momentum beyond anyone's dreams on their side.
What I see Apple doing is motivating Intel to follow their lead by evolving hardware to better serve the software rather than the software having to adapt to the hardware that is available.
That said, Apple's window for abandoning OS X and moving to iOS closed some time ago. Apple now owns the high end of the computer market. When the switch was made to Intel chips, Apple had about 4% of the market and many were loyal hobbyists who were willing to move as Apple moved. Today with 12%, many customers are serious business users who are not to be trifled with. Just as Microsoft is now trapped within the constraints of Windows 95 which remain a part of Windows-Whatever today, Apple is stuck with its hardware architecture choices which were made in 2006. On the plus side, OS X is far more flexible than Windows, but I just don't see Apple making the killer mistake of forcing a change of all software just when they have market momentum beyond anyone's dreams on their side.
What I see Apple doing is motivating Intel to follow their lead by evolving hardware to better serve the software rather than the software having to adapt to the hardware that is available.
Why are people assuming the Intel guy was talking about the loss of Apple business across-the-board? Nothing in the article says that. The Intel guy is director of Intel's Ultrabook division and the article is specifically about ultraslim notebooks so it follows that he's speaking about this segment of the market. Not desktops, not conventional notebooks. Power consumption is obvious a huge factor in the ultraslim segment so it makes sense Apple pushed hard for Intel to reduce power for that form factor. But there's nothing in the WSJ article to suggest Apple was threatening a wholesale move of ALL its desktops and notebooks from Intel to something else, which is what people seem to have believe.
Macrumors read something into that article that isn't there. John Gruber on Daring Fireball was careful to note Apple was talking about mobile computing but Macrumors' reporting gives the impression Apple was threatening to walk away from the whole platform.
Macrumors read something into that article that isn't there. John Gruber on Daring Fireball was careful to note Apple was talking about mobile computing but Macrumors' reporting gives the impression Apple was threatening to walk away from the whole platform.
I doubt whether Intel care too much about Apple's market share, but they will care about the kudos / PR value. Apple is big news, even if it is because of iDevices these days, and any switch from Intel in the Mac line would generate a lot of publicity.
Don't want split hairs, but I would argue that it was the fact that Apple moved away from IBM and their poor roadmap, rather than specifically switching to x86, that made the difference. I believe that if (e.g.) AMD had offered the right chips, roadmap and deal in 2005 then Jobs would have moved to them.
Last edited:
That's utter nonsense. Apple is below 5% market share worldwide. They are a nice customer for Intel, but sure not someone to dictate their roadmap.
Intel has simply realised that ARM could be a threat if they are not sticking to their usual high speed of innovation. And they've realised that power consumption IS an issue. Intel CPUs are already pretty good in this respect (compared to AMD), but there's always room for improvement. Mobile computers will replace desktops eventually, and better mobility and longer battery life never hurts.
Edit: also, in case people haven't noticed, there's no one Apple could switch to. Not now, not in 3 years. Maybe in 5 years, but apparently Intel got the memo that ARM is planning an attack..
Intel has simply realised that ARM could be a threat if they are not sticking to their usual high speed of innovation. And they've realised that power consumption IS an issue. Intel CPUs are already pretty good in this respect (compared to AMD), but there's always room for improvement. Mobile computers will replace desktops eventually, and better mobility and longer battery life never hurts.
Edit: also, in case people haven't noticed, there's no one Apple could switch to. Not now, not in 3 years. Maybe in 5 years, but apparently Intel got the memo that ARM is planning an attack..
I guess the question Intel should be asking is does Apple have enough clout to actually break from x86(x64) and be able to take customers with them?
This is nothing new >_> If your technology isn't up to snuff Apple will abandon it. And I don't think the people on MR realize the Intel already made the changes required, so why are you all getting upset?
Why would apple have different set of processors on different PC's?
iMac's with Intel and Macbook's with AMD/ARM? Never gonna happen.
Answer your wake-up calls or snooze into oblivion
If you get a wake-up call from one of your customers, it means you haven't been listening to them.
Other companies that have recently been getting wake-up calls:
Acer
Nokia
Microsoft
RIM
If you get a wake-up call from one of your customers, it means you haven't been listening to them.
Other companies that have recently been getting wake-up calls:
Acer
Nokia
Microsoft
RIM