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.
ARM-Based MacBook Air Unlikely Based on Analyst Talk with Tim Cook
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'm an oldtimer, and I resent that comment, lol.
OF COURSE the life for OSX is limited. Ditto for iOS.
And that's a Good Thing.
ipedro
macrumors 604
Here's all the information you need to know: in just 5 years of iOS (under 2 with the PC successor, the iPad), iOS devices now make up 72% of Apple's earnings as of last quarter.
... and the graph is on a sharp uphill climb. In another year, it's predicted that that number will breach 80%. When 8 out of 10 of your customers are buying an iOS device, when does it make sense to continue supporting the remaining 2 customers? In another 5 years, it'll be under half of 1 customer per 10.
Think of which jobs today can replace a notebook or desktop with an iPad or iPhone: Retail, Mobile sales agents (real estate, pharmaceutical, etc), educators, medical professionals, are just a few I can think of right away. Add in all the jobs that don't require a computer at all, and this represents a significant portion of all jobs. All that remain are niche professionals such as engineers, writers and multimedia content creators.
Writers can easily solve their issue with the addition of a full keyboard. Engineers, Video, photo and audio professionals are those who still need a Mac/PC but some of those are already being addressed.
All you've got left are the manufacturing industry. You won't see iPads running a production line but then again, it's unlikely that you'll have seen a Mac doing that job anyway. These are highly specialized fields that will have customized computers doing the job.
So where does that leave the Mac in the next 10 years?
... and the graph is on a sharp uphill climb. In another year, it's predicted that that number will breach 80%. When 8 out of 10 of your customers are buying an iOS device, when does it make sense to continue supporting the remaining 2 customers? In another 5 years, it'll be under half of 1 customer per 10.
Think of which jobs today can replace a notebook or desktop with an iPad or iPhone: Retail, Mobile sales agents (real estate, pharmaceutical, etc), educators, medical professionals, are just a few I can think of right away. Add in all the jobs that don't require a computer at all, and this represents a significant portion of all jobs. All that remain are niche professionals such as engineers, writers and multimedia content creators.
Writers can easily solve their issue with the addition of a full keyboard. Engineers, Video, photo and audio professionals are those who still need a Mac/PC but some of those are already being addressed.
All you've got left are the manufacturing industry. You won't see iPads running a production line but then again, it's unlikely that you'll have seen a Mac doing that job anyway. These are highly specialized fields that will have customized computers doing the job.
So where does that leave the Mac in the next 10 years?
Last edited:
It depends on your definition of "not out yet".
You can't order it from Digikey, but V8 is already running on silicon. It's early, and buggy, but it's there. We are less than 18 months from product announcements based on it.
If Intel isn't careful, they will be in trouble with Apple, for sure.
No way. After dealing with lackluster performance on the Air until 2010, there's no way Apple would consider going with a slower processor. Especially since they killed the basic MacBook line.
I'd give more credence to a merging on the Air and Pro lines than a switch to ARM, at least in the near future. ARM processors are certainly impressive, but they don't hold a candle to the i5 and i7. And the iPad, while incredibly functional, can't replace a "real" laptop yet.
I'd give more credence to a merging on the Air and Pro lines than a switch to ARM, at least in the near future. ARM processors are certainly impressive, but they don't hold a candle to the i5 and i7. And the iPad, while incredibly functional, can't replace a "real" laptop yet.
If you kept reading you'd see it came straight from Tim Cook's mouth.
Well not all of the 20% is Macs, there are iPod's and revenue from iTunes in there too. I mean is it unrealistic to say that less than 5% of Apple's revenue will come from Macs/OSX in 5 years? Not at all.
ipedro
macrumors 604
You missed the part where I mentioned that the graph is on a sharp uphill climb. In 1 year (possibly less), Apple will be making +/- 80% of its earnings on iOS. That's just one year. By mid decade, that number is very clearly going to be even higher. 88% to 90% in 2013. By 2015, Mac sales will be insignificant to Apple's bottom line. Will they continue to support it? I believe so, but with a much more minimal product line.
I anticipate a desk iOS flat panel taking the place of the iMac in under 2 years. The Mac Pro has nowhere to go but down so this iOS device on the high end will probably take its place as well. Mac Mini's niche has always been the starter customer. It was introduced as Apple's trojan horse to win over Windows users but the Windows VS Mac fight is all but done. A low end user will find all their needs met with an iPad at a lower price point than a Mac Mini.
What remains are those in the notebook line. If Intel's product map is any indication, we'll continue to see a more powerful MacBookAir that will blur the lines near the MacBookPro. Whatever this melds into will be the single device that is the final frontier for Mac OSX.
For the record, I'm also an "old timer" who loves the Mac and don't relish its demise but I won't cling to the past. I'm not cheerleading these changes, merely pointing out what appears obvious once you analyze the available data and trends.
jameslmoser
macrumors 6502a
Care to explain the whole "back to the mac" concepts then and the ridiculous ios inspired features in Lion. Apple is trying to merge them even though what you said about the two really needing to be different.
PowerPC to x86 was because of supply issues
The reasons Apple switched from PowerPC to x86 were eminently practical. Neither company could provide Apple with the volumes they wanted with assurances that they could meet Apple's needs in the long term. Moreover, although PPC had out-performed x86 for a long time, by the time Apple made the transition, x86 performance rivaled PPC, and as a nice side-effect, x86 used a lot less power to provide the same performance. IBM still makes high-end PPC-based processors, but they're power hungry as stink, and bloody expensive. For single-threaded performance, on certain kinds of workloads, th fastest Power 7 will out-peform the fastest Sandy Bridge, but not by any spectacular margin, and for most applications, the extra expense (hardware and electricity) just is not worth it.
Putting aside binary compatibilty, which is a solvable problem, albeit not efficiently, in theory, you could replace one x86 core with multiple ARM cores and get the same aggregate performance at lower power. The trouble is that not that many apps yet can take advantage of more than one or two cores, and the reduced single-threaded performance would be far too great of a loss. It's possible that Microsoft might be encouraged to make a special Office for ARM that does a better job of using multiple cores. But that would be multiple years hence. Meanwhile, we're stuck using the x86 version and a JIT compiler. While the JIT compilation can be multi-threaded, the translated code will underperform a native ARM binary, and we're still stuck with single-threaded office. Combine the energy of running an inefficient translated binary with the energy to translate it, and that isn't necessarily a win for battery life.
The reasons Apple switched from PowerPC to x86 were eminently practical. Neither company could provide Apple with the volumes they wanted with assurances that they could meet Apple's needs in the long term. Moreover, although PPC had out-performed x86 for a long time, by the time Apple made the transition, x86 performance rivaled PPC, and as a nice side-effect, x86 used a lot less power to provide the same performance. IBM still makes high-end PPC-based processors, but they're power hungry as stink, and bloody expensive. For single-threaded performance, on certain kinds of workloads, th fastest Power 7 will out-peform the fastest Sandy Bridge, but not by any spectacular margin, and for most applications, the extra expense (hardware and electricity) just is not worth it.
Putting aside binary compatibilty, which is a solvable problem, albeit not efficiently, in theory, you could replace one x86 core with multiple ARM cores and get the same aggregate performance at lower power. The trouble is that not that many apps yet can take advantage of more than one or two cores, and the reduced single-threaded performance would be far too great of a loss. It's possible that Microsoft might be encouraged to make a special Office for ARM that does a better job of using multiple cores. But that would be multiple years hence. Meanwhile, we're stuck using the x86 version and a JIT compiler. While the JIT compilation can be multi-threaded, the translated code will underperform a native ARM binary, and we're still stuck with single-threaded office. Combine the energy of running an inefficient translated binary with the energy to translate it, and that isn't necessarily a win for battery life.
Percentages can be unwieldy. While it might be possible that Macs only make up 5% of Apple's revenue in 5 years, that's not a very good indicator of the health of the division. Total Mac sales have continued to grow nearly every quarter since the introduction of the iPhone. It just happens to be that total iPhone sales per quarter have grown at a faster rate than Mac sales. The rate of increase in Mac sales might be less than the rate of increase in iPhone sales, but that doesn't mean they're both not increasing in sales.
So yes, Macs might only account for 5% of total revenue. But if every quarter they sell more Macs, and they are profitable, there's no reason to stop selling Macs, unless Apple is looking for a paradigm shift in its market strategy.
sunspot42
macrumors regular
The Mac Will Cease To Exist In 5 Years
10 years? I doubt Apple will still be in the business of selling Macs in 5 years, at the rate iOS devices are growing.
Face it - for most of the stuff people do with computers, tablets are a fundamentally superior solution. Browsing, watching YouTube, updating Facebook - all best done from an iPad (or an iPhone, which is with you literally everywhere).
Desktop and even laptop PCs are only going to be really needed by business people, and even then only at the office. In fact, I'm not even sure most of them will need a PC - if the iPhone gains the ability to dock and work with external monitors and keyboards, it could function as your desktop PC as well (and as your laptop, with a mobile dock equipped with a keyboard, monitor and larger battery).
Any processing job the mobile device can't handle will simply be offloaded to the cloud, OnLive style. That's already practical in most offices, with their high-speed networks and fat internet pipes. It'll become increasingly practical in the home as well over the next decade.
The PC and laptop as we've grown to know them are as obsolete as the buggywhip. Apple won't be making an ARM-based MacBook because by the time that becomes worth the hassle, they won't be making desktop and laptop computers anymore. The form factors are totally obsolete.
10 years? I doubt Apple will still be in the business of selling Macs in 5 years, at the rate iOS devices are growing.
Face it - for most of the stuff people do with computers, tablets are a fundamentally superior solution. Browsing, watching YouTube, updating Facebook - all best done from an iPad (or an iPhone, which is with you literally everywhere).
Desktop and even laptop PCs are only going to be really needed by business people, and even then only at the office. In fact, I'm not even sure most of them will need a PC - if the iPhone gains the ability to dock and work with external monitors and keyboards, it could function as your desktop PC as well (and as your laptop, with a mobile dock equipped with a keyboard, monitor and larger battery).
Any processing job the mobile device can't handle will simply be offloaded to the cloud, OnLive style. That's already practical in most offices, with their high-speed networks and fat internet pipes. It'll become increasingly practical in the home as well over the next decade.
The PC and laptop as we've grown to know them are as obsolete as the buggywhip. Apple won't be making an ARM-based MacBook because by the time that becomes worth the hassle, they won't be making desktop and laptop computers anymore. The form factors are totally obsolete.
ipedro
macrumors 604
ChrisTX
macrumors 68030
Apple still sold 5.2 million Macs this last quarter. As long as Phil Schiller is still the boss of the Mac, I don't see it going anywhere anytime soon.
*LTD*
macrumors G4
Car companies may sell more £15,000 cars than £80,000 cars but they never stop making the more expensive cars. The big car companies even have formula 1 and rally teams as well. The point being that there is a trickle down effect. Technology developed on the higher level platform trickles down to the smaller platform eventually. Ideas can be tested, implemented and matured on the bigger platform. If Apple felt that iOS was the future or is the future they would be breaking it away completely from Mac OS X. It wouldnt even be based on it right now. Steve never said he would stop selling "trucks". High level computing concepets will always start on the highest level platforms.
Secondly, Apple have long done away with the need to have a single OS product (which is what MS have been trying to do for years, and win8 win MinWin Kernel is the latest attempt).
Apple realise that the machine and its soul (i.e. the OS) need to fit together perfectly in order to make the best product. Thats why they saw no point in trying to fit mac os x into a netbook like product. Its a "lose,lose" situation for their customers (us!). For MS its a win, win for their customers (i.e. OEM's) because it means less work for them but it leaves us the end user with a bad product.
Apple never tried to shoe-horn mac os x into the orginal ipod (which is something that MS would try to do) and even the iphone used a subset of mac OS X rather than the whole thing.
In short the merger of iOS and Mac OS X would serve no real purpose for Apple accept to save money. But ultimately it would destroy both products and hamper their ability to innovate going forward. I think that Apple realise that users DONT want the same UI experience in every device. They want an experience that makes sense for the device they are using. For example, apple realised that people who use laptops and desktop will not want to touch there screens when using their machines. Its just not logical. The desktop/laptop experience is one of "remote control". Its faster to use our fingers and a mouse for a display that is a few feet away from us.
MS on the other hand think that touch screen laptops are a big thing. HP have been making touch screen desktop windows machines for ages. They dont sell! Its the same concept of shoe horning everything into the same OS (Windows 7 has a touch based version as well). Its just as mess.
I dont think Apple do "mess" to much.
Secondly, Apple have long done away with the need to have a single OS product (which is what MS have been trying to do for years, and win8 win MinWin Kernel is the latest attempt).
Apple realise that the machine and its soul (i.e. the OS) need to fit together perfectly in order to make the best product. Thats why they saw no point in trying to fit mac os x into a netbook like product. Its a "lose,lose" situation for their customers (us!). For MS its a win, win for their customers (i.e. OEM's) because it means less work for them but it leaves us the end user with a bad product.
Apple never tried to shoe-horn mac os x into the orginal ipod (which is something that MS would try to do) and even the iphone used a subset of mac OS X rather than the whole thing.
In short the merger of iOS and Mac OS X would serve no real purpose for Apple accept to save money. But ultimately it would destroy both products and hamper their ability to innovate going forward. I think that Apple realise that users DONT want the same UI experience in every device. They want an experience that makes sense for the device they are using. For example, apple realised that people who use laptops and desktop will not want to touch there screens when using their machines. Its just not logical. The desktop/laptop experience is one of "remote control". Its faster to use our fingers and a mouse for a display that is a few feet away from us.
MS on the other hand think that touch screen laptops are a big thing. HP have been making touch screen desktop windows machines for ages. They dont sell! Its the same concept of shoe horning everything into the same OS (Windows 7 has a touch based version as well). Its just as mess.
I dont think Apple do "mess" to much.
Rocketman
macrumors 603
The pad form factor has all the capabilities of a notebook except physical keyboard. That will have to be addressed, probably with projected as well as displayed keyboard. While there could in principal be a flip open ARM device, it is more likely the pad is the final destination.
Possibly displaced later by a heads-up display (glasses or contacts) with voice activation (bone phone) and a wireless coin/thing in your pocket.
The stackable chip form factor will allow 8+ cores, integrated memory and storage, and a side-by side thick battery in a form factor similar to a half length pack of Juicy Fruit Gum.
Rocketman
Possibly displaced later by a heads-up display (glasses or contacts) with voice activation (bone phone) and a wireless coin/thing in your pocket.
The stackable chip form factor will allow 8+ cores, integrated memory and storage, and a side-by side thick battery in a form factor similar to a half length pack of Juicy Fruit Gum.
Rocketman
Because the Mac business is still VERY profitable, and not all business decisions have to come down to laziness
If what you say is true, then what are app developers going to use to develop apps?
If an MBA can be used to develop apps, so can an iPad.
All it takes is Apple making the choice to allow.
Yes, battery life! But also notebook without fans! It means much cooler, lighter, and thinner, and with all the capabilities of full blown Mac OS X. Sounds good, doesn't it!!?
sunspot42
macrumors regular
App Developers
They'll develop them on a tablet or even an iPhone, docked to a keyboard and external monitor(s), utilizing development tools provided by Apple.
Heck, maybe Apple will make virtual iPhone development environments available, and you could develop in the cloud from any connected device, iOS or otherwise. They handle backups, management of your code, etc. etc. etc.
They'll develop them on a tablet or even an iPhone, docked to a keyboard and external monitor(s), utilizing development tools provided by Apple.
Heck, maybe Apple will make virtual iPhone development environments available, and you could develop in the cloud from any connected device, iOS or otherwise. They handle backups, management of your code, etc. etc. etc.
As its been brought up in other threads, Macs have been steadily increasing, not decreasing and its most likely not going to stop.
Business use for Macs are increasing as well and not just with iPhones & iPads. I don't think Apple would risk discontinuing them anytime soon, if at all.
iPads make great portable devices, not so great desktops.
