Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
folks don’t like the Mac form factor and much prefer the size and features that come with iOS.

Based on the data, here's the most reasonable position to take: In 2019, people spent more money on Macs, but bought more units of iPads. So clearly, some prefer the Mac form factor, and some prefer the iPad form factor (and, certainly, some buy both, prefering one vs. the other depending on the use case).

You, by contrast, continue to advocate for an extremist fantasy position that denies that people like the Mac, period: "folks don’t like the Mac form factor". No. Clearly, based on the data, lots of people do like the Mac form factor, and thus your blanket statement is demonstrably false. And it remains false regardless of how many people do or don't like other form factors. You seem to want to pretend that the over 100 million of us that currently use and like* the Mac form factor don't exist, which is denying reality. I feel like I'm arguing with a flat-earther here.
[*Current installed user base of Macs is 110M, and Mac customer satisfaction is >90%.]

In other words:
You: "folks don't like the Mac form factor"
Reality: > 90% of the 110 millon current Mac users like the Mac form factor.

As I said, it's like arguing with flat-earther.

You also argue that folks "much prefer the size and features that come with iOS." But logically, one can't conclude preference by examining unit sales alone when there is a substantial price disparity. If iPads cost the same as Macs, their unit sales would be substantially reduced relative to those of the Mac. For instance, people buy a lot more Camrys and Accords than BMW 3-Series or Mercedes-Benz C and E classes. Does this mean people prefer what the Camrys and Accords offer to what the 3-Series and C/E classes offer? Of course not. Most people would prefer having the latter to the former, but buy the former because of price.
 
Last edited:
As I said, it's like arguing with flat-earther.
I know what you mean, some folks just really can’t accept the fact that, day after day, more iPads are sold than all Macs combined. I’m sure the Apple ][ folks went through the same thing. But, it’s not like a post on a message board is going to change their minds, so why try?
 
I know what you mean, some folks just really can’t accept the fact that, day after day, more iPads are sold than all Macs combined. I’m sure the Apple ][ folks went through the same thing. But, it’s not like a post on a message board is going to change their minds, so why try?

More iPhones are sold than iPads, so we can logically conclude that people really don’t like the larger iPad form factor.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: Cmd-Z and theorist9
I know what you mean, some folks just really can’t accept the fact that, day after day, more iPads are sold than all Macs combined. I’m sure the Apple ][ folks went through the same thing. But, it’s not like a post on a message board is going to change their minds, so why try?

That's called a straw-man argument. You lie about what the person said, and argue against the lie instead of his actual position. Clearly I did acknowledge that more iPads are sold than Mac. I just know it's false to conclude, from this, that people don't like the Mac form factor; and I also know that one cannot conclude, from this, that people prefer the iPad form factor (i.e., cost may be driving the choice).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
More iPhones are sold than iPads, so we can logically conclude that people really don’t like the larger iPad form factor.
Precisely! In terms of customer interest/purchase it goes:
iPhones
iPads
Macs (all of them)

If you’re talking about computing devices Apple sells. AND at each level, many different things factor into why they prefer the device. Whatever those factors are, they lead to the result of iPhones outselling iPads, and iPads outselling Macs.
And more iPhone cables are bought than iPhones, so clearly people don't actually like iPhones, what they like are the cables.
Well, if you want to make that connection, you’re free to do so. This is an opinion board and you’re welcome to yours! :D
That's called a straw-man argument. You lie about what the person said
There’s no lie in that statement. There are some folks, on this board and elsewhere, that really don’t like the fact that the Mac in all versions sell fewer units than the iPad. They’d love nothing more than for Apple to put most of their focus back onto the Mac, but that’s unlikely to happen. And, it’s true that, in the time of the decline of the Apple ][, people felt much the same way (wanting Apple to put more focus on the Apple ][ instead of the Mac). And, there’s no way anyone will be able to convince anyone, with any number of words, that the platform they have grown to enjoy and be productive on will sell less and less over time.
 
Precisely! In terms of customer interest/purchase it goes:
iPhones
iPads
Macs (all of them)

If you’re talking about computing devices Apple sells. AND at each level, many different things factor into why they prefer the device. Whatever those factors are, they lead to the result of iPhones outselling iPads, and iPads outselling Macs.

Well, if you want to make that connection, you’re free to do so. This is an opinion board and you’re welcome to yours! :D

There’s no lie in that statement. There are some folks, on this board and elsewhere, that really don’t like the fact that the Mac in all versions sell fewer units than the iPad. They’d love nothing more than for Apple to put most of their focus back onto the Mac, but that’s unlikely to happen. And, it’s true that, in the time of the decline of the Apple ][, people felt much the same way (wanting Apple to put more focus on the Apple ][ instead of the Mac). And, there’s no way anyone will be able to convince anyone, with any number of words, that the platform they have grown to enjoy and be productive on will sell less and less over time.

I don’t remember a lot of people back then saying “too much mac! Focus on apple ][!” I remember “gee, mac is awesome! Wish i could afford one! Luckily apple just announced the apple ][+gs-symbol-for-born.
 
I don’t remember a lot of people back then saying “too much mac! Focus on apple ][!”
I should have stated “SOME” people :) There were those Apple ][ enthusiasts that couldn’t believe that Apple would ever discontinue the //e alongside folks who purchased the Mac as their first computer and didn’t understand why anyone would use anything else. I perceive a similar split today, with iPadOS and macOS.
 
I love Intel and AMD as brands and get excited to get a laptop with the latest processor. The excitement with an A12 vs A15 is non-existent. Sorry, I hope I can still get a MacBook with a name-brand processor.
 
Apple has made several ground-breaking step-changes in technology over the years that proved to be beneficial after the event, although they were not perceived as such when they were first announced.

For this reason, I'm happy to trust Apple with their plan to move to ARM processors and make judgements after the event, rather than pre-judge it beforehand.
 
  • Like
Reactions: radiologyman
So, as someone who just dropped $25,000 on a Mac Pro - if these rumours are true, what next? I was more or less thinking Apple might start to use ARM co-processors across the board in unique ways well before they transitioned completely away from Intel. There's a literal ton of x86 software, will everything need a complete re-write?

I'm all for better performance with less consumption, I don't care what's running under the hood if it's better in all areas. I just worry about software compatibility/software support majorly lagging behind on the desktop. And of course... this $25,000 computer I just dropped money on
 
Unless all current software is completely compatible with no performance issues this is a huge mistake. Well, I guess a MacBook Air that only runs first party apps and iOS ports would be fine for a decent portion of users.

I really hope someone somewhere is mistaking ARM for AMD in these leaks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DanBig
Benefit to Apple: higher margins.
Benefit to user: none.

What could possibly go wrong here other than your time and frustration as a user?
Seems to me that true all-day battery life while simultaneously improving performance are at least two benefits to the user.

Not to mention the new form factors and functionality that will be possible.
[automerge]1591809548[/automerge]
Unless all current software is completely compatible with no performance issues this is a huge mistake. Well, I guess a MacBook Air that only runs first party apps and iOS ports would be fine for a decent portion of users.

I really hope someone somewhere is mistaking ARM for AMD in these leaks.
AMD sucks.
 
Seems to me that true all-day battery life while simultaneously improving performance are at least two benefits to the user.

Well... maybe this is also possible with Intel. We will see...

"The Intel Galaxy Book S will be the first device to ship with Lakefield, putting the new processor to the test in seeing if Intel can match the kind of all-day battery life that the existing Galaxy Book S is known for."

"Highlights for this processor include its small footprint, due to new 3D stacking ‘Foveros’ technology, as well as its low standby SoC power, as low as 2.5 mW, which Intel states is 91% lower than previous low power Intel processors."
 
Well... maybe this is also possible with Intel. We will see...

"The Intel Galaxy Book S will be the first device to ship with Lakefield, putting the new processor to the test in seeing if Intel can match the kind of all-day battery life that the existing Galaxy Book S is known for."

"Highlights for this processor include its small footprint, due to new 3D stacking ‘Foveros’ technology, as well as its low standby SoC power, as low as 2.5 mW, which Intel states is 91% lower than previous low power Intel processors."

Ich glaube, Intel muss Batterie oder Geschwindigkeit wählen. Sie werden nicht beiden erreichen.

They have no history of achieving such a thing, and x86 is a terrible architecture if what you're concerned about is efficiency. Maybe if they strip out all 32-bit compatibility?
[automerge]1591811294[/automerge]
Agree

Disagree

I worked there from 1997-2006. Even AMD thinks AMD sucks.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: CarlJ
Unless all current software is completely compatible with no performance issues this is a huge mistake. Well, I guess a MacBook Air that only runs first party apps and iOS ports would be fine for a decent portion of users.
Apple has clearly had this in mind for a long time, and they've put a lot of attention into their compilers and surrounding software to support portability. When they switched to 64 bit on iOS, for apps that had up-to-date code submitted, Apple could retarget the 64-bit chips on the fly, if I recall correctly (yes, there was a whole mess of trouble with apps that developers hadn’t kept up-to-date).

If you have a modern Swift codebase, building for an ARM Mac may not be more than flipping some switches in Xcode. Older and/or less well-maintained apps may take more work.

As far as performance goes, I fully expect things will run just as fast as Apple deems necessary. If it doesn’t meet your expectations it won’t be because “Intel is better / more professional / more macho”, it’ll be because you and Apple had differing views on where to draw the line between speed and efficiency.

There’s nothing stopping them from making an absolutely fire breathing ARM based chip - their current phone chips beat many laptop CPUs quite handily, and the chips don’t stop at that point because that’s as fast as Apple can make them go, they stop there because that met Apple’s performance needs while also meeting the energy and thermal budget constraints. Those constraints are much higher on a laptop than on a phone, and on a desktop system, you can effectively make the constraints disappear. With coming generations of the A-series chips, or more likely their laptop/desktop-specific siblings, Apple can make them go as fast as Apple feels like - no more having to ask Intel pretty please to make an x64 with particular characteristics, or having to order from the takeout menu. So I wouldn’t worry about performance.
 
CarlJ - it's not all about "Apple being able to make it go as fast as they want". x86 CPU's are CISC based, while ARM is RISC based. I don't think you can match the performance of x86 in all areas, without making your RISC CPU slowly become more of a CISC architecture or somewhere in-between.

It's like Apple going back to the PowerMac G5 (PowerPC) platform, but this time they get to develop the CPU with an arguably better ARM based instruction set.

I'm all for better performance, but why on earth Apple would go RISC -> CISC -> RISC is beyond me. If it's faster in all regards and has better thermal and power management, then I'm all in. Transitions are painful typically however, and it it's very nice right now that Macs are x86 based as they are compatible with all of the major operating systems and pieces of software available on the market.

I'm really hoping Apple is just heavily developing their ARM processors to work as great co-processors for more Macs. I could see a real benefit there, while running and maintaining the x86 base. Unless x86 is just old-in-the-tooth and hitting a wall, then I suppose it's time to shift to a new/better architecture.

Time will tell ... but I hope it's not anytime soon, as I just dropped a lot of $$ on a new Mac Pro. I think that'd be pretty stupid to accelerate a move to ARM across the line. I hope again, this just puts pressure on Intel to innovate further.

I also agree -> AMD sucks
 
CarlJ - it's not all about "Apple being able to make it go as fast as they want". x86 CPU's are CISC based, while ARM is RISC based. I don't think you can match the performance of x86 in all areas, without making your RISC CPU slowly become more of a CISC architecture or somewhere in-between.

This makes no sense. CISC is slower than RISC, all else being equal. CISC has much more complicated paths, requiring many more gates between flip flops, meaning that it is slower. And the extra work load that can be done by 1 CISC instruction can almost always be done in N RISC instructions in less time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jdb8167
Seems to me that true all-day battery life while simultaneously improving performance are at least two benefits to the user.

Not to mention the new form factors and functionality that will be possible.
[automerge]1591809548[/automerge]

AMD sucks.
Apple routinely updates laptops and mobile devices and makes them thinner but not the battery life smaller. So this "benefit" you are imagining, is purely a mirage. Problem is for their laptops, you cant really get them any smaller without compromising the keyboard space and size.

So this one, like I said, is going straight to Tim Cook's kids retirement fund. No sorry, his kids and grandkids are all sorted. It will make his great grandkids rich. That's about it.
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: Oberhorst
Apple routinely updates laptops and mobile devices and makes them thinner but not the battery life smaller. So this "benefit" you are imagining, is purely a mirage. Problem is for their laptops, you cant really get them any smaller without compromising the keyboard space and size.

So this one, like I said, is going straight to Tim Cook's kids retirement fund. No sorry, his kids and grandkids are all sorted. It will make his great grandkids rich. That's about it.

Apple has made the last several iPhones THICKER and with more battery life. What are you talking about?
 
CarlJ - it's not all about "Apple being able to make it go as fast as they want". x86 CPU's are CISC based, while ARM is RISC based. I don't think you can match the performance of x86 in all areas, without making your RISC CPU slowly become more of a CISC architecture or somewhere in-between.
Uh, thanks, I guess, for the explainer - it’s not like I’ve been using both types for decades. And following up with “I don’t think you can match the performance” - that’s not a data point, it’s an opinion. If I understand correctly (and I haven’t been paying real close attention lately), CISC processors have been heading towards essentially RISC, internally, for quite a while - with those big powerful CISC instructions implemented in the CPU as lots of RISC-like microcode instructions. CISC becomes essentially a macro language getting in the way between you and the actual processor. Whatever, Apple’s A13 is getting in the vicinity of desktop performance, and that’s with a 1/4” thick hermetically sealed system with strictly limited power and practically no cooling (no fans, no big finned radiators, no internal airspace, just radiating off the case) - you don’t think they could do several times that performance when the power and thermal limits are lifted? But hey, don’t listen to me, I only work with the things - @cmaier built them.

Unless x86 is just old-in-the-tooth and hitting a wall, then I suppose it's time to shift to a new/better architecture.
Intel has not been making massive strides lately, from what I’ve heard. I’m cautiously optimistic about new ARM Macs.
 
Last edited:
Maybe an ARM Mac mini? Given its low volume, it wouldn’t affect that many users, and would be an affordable option for developers.

Would be cool if we could see a Mac mini the size of an Apple TV.
 
  • Like
Reactions: - rob -
If I understand correctly (and I haven’t been paying real close attention lately), CISC processors have been heading towards essentially RISC, internally, for quite a while - with those big powerful CISC instructions implemented in the CPU as lots of RISC-like microcode instructions. CISC becomes essentially a macro language getting in the way between you and the actual processor.

I'm starting to take issue with current CISC processors being described as a complex instruction decoder wrapped around a RISC core. If you do that, then you need to describe the 8080 and 6502 as CISC wrappers around a RISC core.

For decades now, processors have had an orthogonal general purpose core that's controlled by the instruction decoder. In a 6502, the 8-bit ALU that performs your "add to accumulator", is the same ALU that (when double pumped) calculates the effective address for indexed addressing modes.

You have to look way back to find processor architectures where each different instruction is executed by its own circuitry. I think some of the 4-bit embedded microcontrollers are like that. Also perhaps processors built by students out of TTL jellybeans.

RISC is about reducing instructions that have multiple resource and scheduler hogging steps.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.