That's a $1700 chip. Spend $1700 on an ARM chip, and you can get a 32 core implementation.
ARM chips are all different, but here's a comparison between a 46 core Falkor and a 12 core Skylake chip. It's... competitive.
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 Plans to Ditch Intel and Use Custom Mac Chips Starting in 2020
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That's a $1700 chip. Spend $1700 on an ARM chip, and you can get a 32 core implementation.
ARM chips are all different, but here's a comparison between a 46 core Falkor and a 12 core Skylake chip. It's... competitive.
For sure -I've got a 2013 MPB still runs great (needed a battery replacement)... and I saw another thread on this forum that lets users install High Sierra to my 2008 MacPro -- Also works great!
I should have started that post with "Of late," - because I'd say since 2015, the story is different. I'd agree that Apple WAS fine. I'm not so sure anymore.
I'm getting tires of Apple's "planned obsolescence". While it may be good for going forward, I can't afford this much longer. Living on a fixed income (retired) has it's downside.
Last edited:
True, but we paved the way for the future.The future belongs to the young.
I'd say the story has been different since 2012.
2012 - Retina MacBook Pro
2013 - Trashcan Mac Pro
2014 - Sealed-shut Mac Mini
2015 - 12" MacBook with 1 USB-C port
2016 - MacBook Pros with only USB-C ports
2017 - macOS dropped support for ExFAT and FAT32
Well, pull up a webbed folding chair next to mine and help me yell at the kids to get off the lawn...well, here in AZ we have "drought-resistant landscaping".
There is definitely going to be a market for low-cost options for those who are retired and on fixed incomes. I bought what will probably be my last iMac yesterday. What happens after that... probably something non-Apple.
Yep, and it all coincides with Steve passing in 2011 and Forstall being outed in 2012..
What happened after I guess we don't know, but it would seem like the design/minimalist side (Ive) took outsized control in decision making and we've been going too far down that path (IMO) ever since.
This was a numbers game. The folks that are generally in these forums are the ones who would upgrade their RAM and HD to breathe extra life into a machine. This is the actually the niche case. Most folks don't.
As a result Apple sacrificed upgradeability for weight and form. Also, for compute and storage it's happening more and more outside the base machine.
I opted for a 13" MBP this last upgrade because I didn't need quad core on board anymore. My heavy loads are all offloaded to a server or the cloud. At home I have an eGPU which does heavy graphics lifting. TB3 is great for this kinda stuff.
It's a change but it makes sense. Keep the upgrades outside the box to add longevity to the machine. This keeps prices lower and only makes it so that you only have to get what you need.
That isn't the only way to add longevity.
(you could have that same longevity while also having more internal options for updates/changes btw)
How'd that work out for the 2013 Mac Pro?
I think thin/light/minimal is totally great - for some users/usages, but not all.
They need more diversity in the product line.
Not every single product needs to be as thin, light, sealed and minimal as possible.
Hmm, as opposed to all other companies that want one-time single purchase customers?
Seriously though... For tech to really advance, there must be obsolescence. One very long standing complaint against Windows was that they tried to stay backward compatible for sooo long. Hard to really advance an operating system that way. Apple did this for a while too.. before finally shedding part of the OS. Hardware.. same thing. Imagine a computer 10 years from now. Do you prefer one that's 25% faster than today's... or 500%. Vision makes progress... and not minor trivial advances year over year.
Hmm, as opposed to all other companies that want one-time single purchase customers?
Seriously though... For tech to really advance, there must be obsolescence. One very long standing complaint against Windows was that they tried to stay backward compatible for sooo long. Hard to really advance an operating system that way. Apple did this for a while too.. before finally shedding part of the OS. Hardware.. same thing. Imagine a computer 10 years from now. Do you prefer one that's 25% faster than today's... or 500%. Vision makes progress... and not minor trivial advances year over year.
OK, how about a further caveat? Im OK with managing planned obsolescence as long as there is healthy (in my eyes) competion. With better competiton I wouldn't balk at phone obsolescence at one year or tablet and laptop obsolescence at two because it wouldn’t happen...
Based upon income, job security, benefits and prospects for long term stability the young may not like where that path blazed by older people is taking them right now. And I would definitely be put into the old category myself (59).
I agree. I can dream, can't I?
Hell, their business plan involves recycling their products for parts and materials so it benefits them when things fail.
Some of it seems like a feature when they continue to use the same components that keep failing in the same way for years. Their attitude reminds me of people who buy a new pair of sneakers every time they get a scuff or a crease.
With the 2013 Mac Pro I agree with you. That is a machine completely bent for the pro user, but that’s the only one in Apple’s lineup (despite the name the MacBook Pro does not have the same bend, iMac Pro not enough Data).
Please reread, though. I didn’t say “all” users. I said “most”. Big difference. I agree with your statement above but it isn’t what I was arguing.
Apple can’t please all users. The primary goal, as of all business, is to make money. So they optimize to capture as many users as they can. Truly, those of use who would upgrade the internals of a laptop to its fullest over time are no longer their market. They’ve done their best to keep us by giving us stupidly fast ports but they need to optimize the form factor for what the majority of users want and that’s not us anymore.
Adding diversity to their product line would probably make them less profitable. The ideal product is one size fits all which clearly isn’t diverse enough but too many products and you end up adding to support and manufacturing costs. Those are not small hits to the bottom line. The continued increase in Mac sales volume shows that they probably have this about right.
Mission accomplished then..
They are shedding plenty of user types and printing so much money they have trouble avoiding taxes on all of it.
Honestly I think you're giving them too much of a pass.
They could diversify the lineup a bit and not torpedo their profits.
The main problem I have is that they do actually have some diversity - within the narrow box of thin/light/minimal as possible - but spread across an endlessly confusing and overlapping set of SKUs.
I think there is some ground to pull back on that and still have it be a smart business decision.
Obviously every company wants to make money. There is a limit and a balance needed there, especially with longer term concerns in mind.
If you optimize every decision around profitability to this extent, it's a long term loss.
I agree with you, and no offense, but everyone's income is "fixed" unless they're commissioned sales people. Yes, they could in theory change careers to earn more, but most people can't do that.
[doublepost=1527950997][/doublepost]
The current generation isn't benefitting from the same situation the retiring generation did. Look at average income and economic situation of age 25 then vs now. It's not a result of a fault in the current generation that they aren't owing houses, earning well above, etc.
I'm 52.
While I get where you are coming from, users are as much at fault behaviorally as Apple and other manufacturers. I have a 2010 MBP that runs High Sierra just fine and meets my needs today; the only reason I have a 2015 model is I wanted a newer machine and Retina display even if my old MBP still meet my needs. People tend to like the latest gadgets and advances even if they don’t really need them, and old tech doesn’t magically stop functioning (except maybe iPhone batteries) because something new came out.
Of course, companies feed that desire by advertising all the cool new features, thus playing to our desires rather than needs. There are certainly users that can benefit from speed and graphics improvements, and in a number of cases gen 3 or so offers so many new capabilities that gen 1 is really no longer meeting user expectations; but that is a small subset of all the stuff out there.
YMMV HAND
Its time this intake not off ... to stellar new products, it’s very similar to the switch from ibm/power to Intel. But now Apple hasten money and workforce to establish its own silicon based on a longterm strategy.
BUT Apple has to show it can deliver on the long distance (like quantum computing).
BUT Apple has to show it can deliver on the long distance (like quantum computing).
Yes, they could. They could diversify and not torpedo their profits. But that is not their goal. It is to make as much money as possible. I'm actually not giving them much of a pass at all, I'm assuming they're a cold hard business. They will sell just enough skus to make the most money possible to the best of the company's abilities.
There ARE arguments to be made that they will lose user share if they lose their "core" users. I waffle on this a lot. If you look at MS back in the day they didn't appeal to platform developers (their core) and lost a lot of server share. On the flip side, from the video games industry, the trend of NOT appealing to core users shows that they bring in more money... what does that mean for the PC market? ♂️
That is long term conjecture though. I suspect Apple has a much better idea of what their doing in this market than I can guess.
I think Apple with have a fast x86 emulator to maintain compatibility and still outperform Intel Chips. That is unless Intel finally figures how to make 10nm and 7nm chips by then.
I owned PC's all my life until Apple went Intel. That’s only because I could dual boot into Windows. I was 100% sold on Apple at that point. Then they slowly started taking away ports, making things thinner, and sealing their machines up where you can't add an SSD of your own or upgrade the ram in your own computer.
So two years ago I switched back to PC's permanently. Except for my iPhone and iPad I don’t see myself ever buying an iMac or MBP again. Throwaway computers are not my ideal. I like to upgrade as I see fit. Apple has gone a different route entirely. I don't hold out any hope for x86 compatibility once they start producing their own chips and that along with their current direction of thinner lighter etc is really just heartbreaking to me.
So two years ago I switched back to PC's permanently. Except for my iPhone and iPad I don’t see myself ever buying an iMac or MBP again. Throwaway computers are not my ideal. I like to upgrade as I see fit. Apple has gone a different route entirely. I don't hold out any hope for x86 compatibility once they start producing their own chips and that along with their current direction of thinner lighter etc is really just heartbreaking to me.
My thoughts about what you said:
1) “Permanently” is a strong word. Pretty hard to know what will happen in the computer world 5, 8, 10 years down the road.
2) The whole “need to upgrade” thing just doesnt make sense to me. The vast majority of computer users never upgrade their computers. And that with desktops. Even fewer upgrade laptops.
3) No computer company should bade their future direction on appeasing people that want to dual boot. They represent such a small minority, and people that actually use macs because they like the mac os and ecosystem should not have progress and innovation stifled so that a minority of people can continue to use the machine to run a competing os. If it means so much to you, go to walmart and drop $300 on a windows machine. Simple solution.