Apple Transitioning Macs to Custom Chips With 'Incredible' Performance Starting Later This Year

[falainber]

It will be when Apple is the one to do it properly.

Therein lies the difference between Apple and a competitor like Microsoft - not in what they do, but how they go about doing it.

Bet-hedging is what Microsoft did with Windows for ARM. Look what it got them so far—next to nothing.

Apple knew very well that if there was even the slightest hint that they weren’t betting the farm on ARM Macs, the current Mac users would simply fight over the remaining stock of Intel Macs and then stay away in droves until Apple gave up and went back to making Intel Macs again.

Instead, we saw Tim Cook getting on stage and making himself 100% clear that Intel Macs were going away within 24 months and not coming back. They made it abundantly clear that it would be either ARM or the highway. Apple has shown they are ruthless enough to dump Intel and this will be crucial towards fostering greater adoption of ARM Macs and getting developers on board.

This is the lesson which Apple keeps teaching and which others keep ignoring - that in order to bring about meaningful change, you need to force it. Boldly and unapologetically.

It did nothing for Microsoft because in laptop/desktop/server space ARM does not bring anything special to the table. Microsoft can't tell all their customers that tomorrow they are all switching to ARM. Nor do they really care if their OS is used on ARM or x86. Apple switching to ARM is not going to do much to the way we use computers either. Whatever Apple did in computer space never mattered much because they are a very marginal player.

"Apple has shown they are ruthless enough to dump Intel". They have already ruthlessly jumped to a new architecture many times in the past. For the most part they had to do it to survive. It's different this time but not because of the Macs. After switching to Intel, Macs gained market share (from 5 to 9%) but the progress stopped long ago and seemingly started reversing back. Hardware wise Apple computers never represented anything special. They try differentiate using weird form factors and other marketing tricks. This time around, it's hard to say what the primary motivation is. It could be one of many factors: leverage mobile investments to lower the price of CPUs (in-house as opposed to external), save on software development, abandoning pro market in favor of the consumer one etc. One thing is clear, other computer manufacturers have none of those factors in play (switching from Intel to Qualcomm is not really that attractive) so one should not expect them to immediately follow suit.
[automerge]1593195328[/automerge]

I see what you did there. You are comparing Microsoft's slow, incompatible with their apps port of windows to ARM to Apple's high performance, all your mac apps, plus native plus all your ios apps port to ARM.

Sure.

Whatever.

Microsoft was "totally" first there.

Despite everything you said, ARM version of Windows (at least the new ones) can run way more applications than Macs will. iOS apps are rather irrelevant. They were purposely designed for touch interface (which is not available on Macs) and small screens. Can people run them on Macs. They can. Will they? Unlikely. Why would they? Most Mac owners have an iPhone or iPad anyways.

 

[firewood]

At least no one has posted "You can tear bootcamp from my cold dead hands" yet.

I know its going to be a loss for a few, but a very very few. Apple did the math here. they know the active use rate for Bootcamp is probably in my guess around 1% of total active mac users. So for the near term, stick with Intel and who knows maybe someday Microsoft will ship a ARM version that is not a total train wreck*

I would not be surprised if the removal of x86 bootcamp negatively affects Microsoft revenues more than Apple's.

As for corporate use, I learned long ago that many big corps prefer employees to run Windows on Citrix, et.al., on their own data center servers, or on Azure or AWS, etc., rather than allowing employees to mess up corporate laptop security.

 

[cardfan]

and lets not forget that the cost savings from the A series could be used to add more into these new macs, including in the case of imacs and notebooks, faceID cameras or higher rez front facing cameras that we all need now.

It will be interesting to see though. that is for sure!

What cost savings? It’ll be more expensive.

 

[cmaier]

What cost savings? It’ll be more expensive.

It might be. Depends on die area and yield. I figure the yield % will be comparable to Intel (which has been having problems), but there will be more die per wafer (and generally you pay per wafer start), so the yield should be better for Apple.

Die area is an unknown - smaller process node, but perhaps more transistors for various other SoC blocks. At this point can only assume it's a wash.

Motherboard will almost certainly have fewer chips - no more T2! - so that's a probably savings for Apple.

No more indirectly paying for Intel's marketing budget. That's savings.

CPU designer ain't cheap. This one depends on how they are doing things - my guess is that the cores are shared between iPad and iphone and Mac, so it's probably 2 or 3 dozen people that are specifically dealing with just mac stuff. Though "just mac stuff" is reusable in a couple years as those chips filter down into iPads and stuff. So it's a question of how costs are allocated. Intel pays its designers too, but over a larger number of chips (at least in year 1 - again, Apple is likely to keep making the same apple silicon and passing it down into lower end devices like apple tvs and iPads, so the quantities may eventually be similar).

Overall I'd guess there are cost savings, but perhaps not huge. There are so many unknowns, though, that it's hard to be sure.

 

[Gerdi]

I see what you did there. You are comparing Microsoft's slow, incompatible with their apps port of windows to ARM to Apple's high performance, all your mac apps, plus native plus all your ios apps port to ARM.

Rosetta being faster than Microsofts emulation technology is close to impossible. And then Windows on ARM is not the least bit slow, albeit x86 emulated apps are generally slower than the native versions. I guess your info is not really first hand...

 

[cmaier]

Rosetta being faster than Microsofts emulation technology is close to impossible.

Why? Microsoft doesn't even emulate 64 bit. And isn't Microsoft's tech dynamic? Rosetta generally does a static translation once, and then you never need to do it again.

 

[macsplusmacs]

emulated apps are generally slower than the native versions.

That's exactly what I am talking about. The number of native apps for ARM surface is minuscule compared to what will be native for ARM apple come feb 1.

 

[Gerdi]

Why? Microsoft doesn't even emulate 64 bit. And isn't Microsoft's tech dynamic? Rosetta generally does a static translation once, and then you never need to do it again.

I am referring to the dynamic translation part - as i understood that part is what they call Rosetta (2). As far as dynamic translation is concerned, achieving close to 50% native is as good as it gets. Most dynamic translators like QEMU are much slower.
The missing 64 bit emulator support has non technical reasons. I also consider 32bit x86 somewhat harder to emulate - as AMD64 is much cleaner.

[automerge]1593200095[/automerge]

That's exactly what I am talking about. The number of native apps for ARM surface is minuscule compared to what will be native for ARM apple come feb 1.

This could very well be the case and i do not want to argue this. However this does not make Windows on ARM a bad porting effort on Microsofts side - technically speaking. It is 3rd party native ARM apps which are lacking - some i just compiled myself, because it is as easy as with XCode when you use Visual Studio.
If you add all the native ARM Linux apps, which are running under Windows on ARM via WLS2, the library today is not really that small though.

 

[hagjohn]

You will need to stay with intel Mac if you need widows. I'm getting an ARM Mac but I plan to keep my intel Mini, just incase I need windows for something.

 

[Alan Wynn]

Many of those items are really, really, good - and they're reasons I'm an Apple fan, but is a world better without Swiss watchmakers and multiple competitive companies in the tech space?

Switch watch makers have just become a really cool niche market and I am fine with that. As for “multiple competitive companies in the tech space”, is that not where we are now? Before the iPhone, Microsoft had over 85% of the desktop market and split the smart phone space with Blackberry and Nokia. Now we have Google and Apple splitting the Smart Phone space (with shares from 75-25 to 52-48 in favor of Android). In addition, if one considers the high end of the iPad market, and the Chromebook market part of the desktop/laptop market, Microsoft’s share has dropped quite a bit.

No one player has any where near the dominance that Microsoft used to have.

Apple of 2020 looks alot like Microsoft of the 1990s:
- Higher walled gardens
-- iOS 14 has alot of what I'll call 'meta' - Meta that minimally increases the benefit of an app, but largely increases the amount of required development support on one platform

Except that Microsoft got built those walls from a market dominant position and Apple has done it from customer adoption dominant position. There is no market where Apple’s core technology was over 50% when they started (and until the Apple Watch becomes iPhone-free) there is no market that they dominate where the requirement that it be on an Apple platform is not limiting for them.

-- Apple Pay is great - but isn't the consumer served better by an open standard payment system?

NFC pay is an open standard payment system and existed long before Apple Pay came on the scene. From my understanding, Android allows completely open use of their NFC system, and has over 50% market share pretty much everywhere, yet ApplePay is, by far, the dominant mobile payment system. This is driven by customers and the customer experience, not by Apple’s ability to enforce a monopoly the way Microsoft could in years past.

- Inflexible business practices?: hey.com exposed a problem. I'm all for Apple making a profit on an App Store, and 30% was certainly fair at the onset of "App Stores" - but is it still? On top of that, there is no real innovation related to allowing people to find and use new offerings on their phones. Innovation is stagnating because it's under complete control by Apple.

Again, they control less then 50% of the market in their biggest territory and under 25% in many areas. Why should we not have business model competition? People on here have focused on how unfair this is for the developer, but I look at the benefits to be as a consumer. I do not want to be forced to create yet another account in order to be able to use a new service. I am happy that Apple requires developers on the platform to let me use SignIn with Apple and to let me pay through the App Store.

People (including developers) who do not like that should feel free to pick a platform with a different business model. Again, when Microsoft was in control of 85% of the market it was easier to argue that there was no choice, not that seems absurd.

As for innovation, how are any of Apple’s policies preventing innovation? Anyone with an idea or business that does not work in with Apples policies is free to launch either as a pure web app (just like VS Code is), or on Android (either via the Play store, by creating a side-loading experience or their own Android Store). Again it seems so odd to argue that only having access to the secondary player through their store, but not under their rules can one be successful.

- Unrelenting focus on profit growth: That is their fiduciary duty, but to me, it's short-term focused, and leads to some bad decision making and makes them look bad. I'm a much more wary of Apple as a company (just as I am for a company like Amazon) today than say, in 2010. I wonder how management will react when/if revenue growth slows.

They are focused on sales growth, and as a consequence, profit growth. Their margins have been remarkably consistent over the years. What specific examples bother you that make you “wary of them”? What do you consider short term examples of “short term thinking”? Certainly not their silicon? What about their AR efforts? The rumored car?

In spite of that, I think this move to ARM (RISC-V?) is a good thing, I'll jump in feet first, because I believe that move to more open source hardware, in the long run, healthy for competition, good for consumers and great for innovation.

To be clear this is the exact opposite of “open source hardware”. There is no more closed hardware than what they are building. It is purpose-built for their exact needs rather than designed as something general like RISC-V, Intel or AMD chips. What makes it exciting to me is that is that it is the first real competition in the desktop CPU space in ages. AMD and Intel both have made most of the same big-picture design decisions, while Apple is making a completely different set of choices. Who knows if they are right, but it is nice to see real competition.

 

[Gerdi]

There is no more closed hardware than what they are building. It is purpose-built for their exact needs rather than designed as something general like RISC-V, Intel or AMD chips.

You are comparing a SoC with CPU architectures. The ARM implementation of their cores is pretty much ARMv8.6A - as general and well documented as Intel and AMD CPUs. The SoC itself certainly is purpose-built for their exact needs.

 

[Alan Wynn]

You are comparing a SoC with CPU architectures. The ARM implementation of their cores is pretty much ARMv8.6A - as general and well documented as Intel and AMD CPUs. The SoC itself certainly is purpose-built for their exact needs.

ARM’s ISA is not open source either, but the point, and what makes this move interesting, is that they are moving from a more general architecture to a more purpose built one.

 

[cmaier]

I am referring to the dynamic translation part - as i understood that part is what they call Rosetta (2).

No, Rosetta 2 is static. It translates when you (1) install an app or (2) on first launch if not already translated.

In certain cases it will do some translation on the fly (for complicated reasons having to do with how x86 lets you modify code on the fly, for example), but generally the translation is done once and that's it.

 

[Alan Wynn]

But they do it only in the minds of their followers. Being last in porting their desktop OS to ARM hardly qualifies as ushering a new world order.

You are absolutely correct. They have little impact on the most markets they enter. I was just in Target looking at the latest models of Rio music players and Microsoft Zooms. I had a question for my BF, so I sent him a message from my Blackberry. He used his Palm Treo to respond. I cannot wait until this Covid thing is done, so I can swing by the Gateway Country store! I do hope I get a new Pebble Smart Watch for my birthday.

You are right though, Apple is not usually first with a technology, but they are often first to make it really work and/or first to have wide adoption. It is likely that Apple will sell more ARM desktops/laptops in their first month of shipping than Microsoft will have since they introduced their first Windows RT system.

We will have to wait and see if Apple is really able to deliver better systems then its competitors on commodity CPUs, but I will bet you the following: if they do you will quickly see lots of other companies trying to build ARM systems for Windows and you might finally have a real competitor to Intel/AMD for the desktop/laptop space.

 

[dgdosen]

... doomers ...

I prefer healthy skeptic...

...

I wanted to respond to your points - none of which I really disagree - but just wanted to add more thoughts:

...
Except that Microsoft got built those walls from a market dominant position and Apple has done it from customer adoption dominant position.
..

Definitely good on Apple for attaining that dominance in a more consumer friendly way than Microsoft. But now that they are in a more dominant position, are they acting in the consumer's best interest? You make a good case that they do, but I think we're now stuck where new advancement in many areas has to run through Cupertino.

yet ApplePay is, by far, the dominant mobile payment system.

Again, great that they got here, but now innovation can only come from Cupertino.

... I look at the benefits to be as a consumer.

Completely agree. That's where my arguments are based.

As for innovation, how are any of Apple’s policies preventing innovation? Anyone with an idea or business that does not work in with Apples policies is free to launch either as a pure web app (just like VS Code is), or on Android (either via the Play store, by creating a side-loading experience or their own Android Store). Again it seems so odd to argue that only having access to the secondary player through their store, but not under their rules can one be successful.

We disagree here - I think those policies do prevent innovation - they can choke it off. Is a huge problem today? Maybe not. But from things like sherlocking, to internal APIs that aren't available to external devs there's some of Apple making that playing field slightly less level.

They are focused on sales growth, and as a consequence, profit growth. Their margins have been remarkably consistent over the years. What specific examples bother you that make you “wary of them”? What do you consider short term examples of “short term thinking”? Certainly not their silicon? What about their AR efforts? The rumored car?

I wasn't clear there. I agree their silicon advancements sound great. I think Apple 'tech' has made great advancements. I think Apple 'business' - for those items mentioned above or in my last post - deserves scrutiny.

To be clear this is the exact opposite of “open source hardware”. There is no more closed hardware than what they are building. It is purpose-built for their exact needs rather than designed as something general like RISC-V, Intel or AMD chips. What makes it exciting to me is that is that it is the first real competition in the desktop CPU space in ages. AMD and Intel both have made most of the same big-picture design decisions, while Apple is making a completely different set of choices. Who knows if they are right, but it is nice to see real competition.

I think we agree here - I should have said disruption... I think Apple's silicon innovation will help them define new kinds of exciting devices. I also think open source hardware will enable companies to mirror how Apple builds their silicon and bring us other new compute devices that aren't ipads/iphones/laptops. Hopefully they'll keep Apple on their toes.

 

[falainber]

You are absolutely correct. They have little impact on the most markets they enter. I was just in Target looking at the latest models of Rio music players and Microsoft Zooms. I had a question for my BF, so I sent him a message from my Blackberry. He used his Palm Treo to respond. I cannot wait until this Covid thing is done, so I can swing by the Gateway Country store! I do hope I get a new Pebble Smart Watch for my birthday.

You are right though, Apple is not usually first with a technology, but they are often first to make it really work and/or first to have wide adoption. It is likely that Apple will sell more ARM desktops/laptops in their first month of shipping than Microsoft will have since they introduced their first Windows RT system.

We will have to wait and see if Apple is really able to deliver better systems then its competitors on commodity CPUs, but I will bet you the following: if they do you will quickly see lots of other companies trying to build ARM systems for Windows and you might finally have a real competitor to Intel/AMD for the desktop/laptop space.

In case you forgot, Apple entered computer market (the topic of this discussion) decades ago and their impact has been negligible. They failed in servers. They are barely present in workstations. They mostly do AIOs and laptops. If you analyze the vast array of technologies in computer industry right now, there is very little Apple DNA in it.

 

[cmaier]

In case you forgot, Apple entered computer market (the topic of this discussion) decades ago and their impact has been negligible.

Apple ][ had a huge effect on legitimizing the use of computers in homes and schools. Before Apple introduced Macs, we were all using green-on-black monitored command-line interfaces. Windows was intended to be MS’s solution to Mac. To say that Apple had no “impact” is insane.

 

[firewood]

Apple ][ had a huge effect on legitimizing the use of computers in homes and schools.

The Apple II kickstarted a massive software industry (bigger than Radio Shack's and before the C64's). Visicalc changed the majority of the workload of the finance and accounting professions. Flight Simulator launched an entire computer gaming genre.

Then the AAPL IPO (years before MSFT's!) set off a land rush of tech venture capital and crazy entrepreneurs (a lot more than just Fairchild alums). Nothing like that again till Netscape.

 

[cmaier]

The Apple II kickstarted a massive software industry (bigger than Radio Shack's and before the C64's). Visicalc changed the majority of the workload of the finance and accounting professions. Flight Simulator launched an entire computer gaming genre.

Then the AAPL IPO (years before MSFT's!) set off a land rush of tech venture capital and crazy entrepreneurs (a lot more than just Fairchild alums). Nothing like that again till Netscape.

Well I’d argue that the IBM-PC and MS’s business model of “buy an operating system and run it on whatever machine you want” would be the next big turning point, followed by the GUI revolution kicked off by Mac (wasn’t the first GUI, but certainly the most consequential in making MS go down that road). After that, though, not much until Mozilla/Netscape. Palm maybe, then iPhone.

The Wintel era, with so much consolidation in the hands of two entities with few real competitors, really drowned progress.

 

[falainber]

Apple ][ had a huge effect on legitimizing the use of computers in homes and schools. Before Apple introduced Macs, we were all using green-on-black monitored command-line interfaces. Windows was intended to be MS’s solution to Mac. To say that Apple had no “impact” is insane.

They introduced graphics to the "masses". They did not graphic interfaces for computers. There were plenty of CAD (and other) tools using graphic displays before it. Computer miniaturisation was part of the evolution as the design of all computer components was progressing. Sure, Apple played a role.

 

[Abazigal]

It did nothing for Microsoft because in laptop/desktop/server space ARM does not bring anything special to the table. Microsoft can't tell all their customers that tomorrow they are all switching to ARM. Nor do they really care if their OS is used on ARM or x86. Apple switching to ARM is not going to do much to the way we use computers either. Whatever Apple did in computer space never mattered much because they are a very marginal player.

Exactly.

Microsoft did not manufacture their own ARM chips, and the ones in the market have been pretty unexceptional. This meant that ARM PCs ended up being rather lacklustre as well. Performance stank, and software support was pretty non-existent. Because there really was no incentive for developers to support what was effectively a zero platform, knowing that it had zero prospects and given Microsoft's lackadaisical attitude surrounding it.

Based on this pretty crappy track record, I don't see why the enormity of what Apple is doing should be dismissed so flippantly just because another company technically did it first (and managed it so poorly).

You are right in that 90% of Apple users don't use Macs (and likely never will). The next paradigm shift will be ushered in by Apple, but it still matters because Apple (and developers and creators) still rely on Macs to make products put out in the world.

"Apple has shown they are ruthless enough to dump Intel". They have already ruthlessly jumped to a new architecture many times in the past. For the most part they had to do it to survive. It's different this time but not because of the Macs. After switching to Intel, Macs gained market share (from 5 to 9%) but the progress stopped long ago and seemingly started reversing back. Hardware wise Apple computers never represented anything special. They try differentiate using weird form factors and other marketing tricks. This time around, it's hard to say what the primary motivation is. It could be one of many factors: leverage mobile investments to lower the price of CPUs (in-house as opposed to external), save on software development, abandoning pro market in favor of the consumer one etc. One thing is clear, other computer manufacturers have none of those factors in play (switching from Intel to Qualcomm is not really that attractive) so one should not expect them to immediately follow suit.

The motivation to me is pretty straightforward. There are things Apple wants to do with PCs, which they are currently unable to do given that Intel (and even AMD) is not able to supply them with the quality of processor that they want. Switching to their own custom-designed silicon brings with it numerous benefits, including (but not limited to):

1) Better performance at lower power consumption
2) Cooler, quieter machines
3) Their ARM chips will be cheaper to manufacture vs purchasing the equivalent intel chip. So cost savings which would either translate to lower prices or more bang for the buck.
4) The chip can be further customised to support certain functionality in line with Apple's product strategy.

The main beneficiary will be MacBooks, which stand to gain from dramatically-improved battery life and better sustained performance in addition to thinner and lighter form factors. This, together with the unique functionality afforded by macOS and the entire Apple ecosystem, will allow Apple to further differentiate their Macs in a manner that many other PC OEMs can't, for the simple reason that there is no compelling ARM chip for PC manufacturers to transition to, and app support for ARM windows is still pretty bad.

In addition, Apple is no stranger to platform transitions, and it shows in the manner they went about it during the keynote. They offered a simple, yet compelling reason for such a transition to take place, provided a clear transition timeline, while making it clear that existing Macs would not be thrown under the bus.

It's pretty impressive. Not just what Apple has done, but what this means for the Mac ecosystem overall.

 

[Alan Wynn]

In case you forgot, Apple entered computer market (the topic of this discussion) decades ago and their impact has been negligible. They failed in servers. They are barely present in workstations. They mostly do AIOs and laptops. If you analyze the vast array of technologies in computer industry right now, there is very little Apple DNA in it.

I did not forget. The original quote to which you replied was:

It’s always fun to see Apple usher in a new world order.

To which you replied:

But they do it only in the minds of their followers. Being last in porting their desktop OS to ARM hardly qualifies as ushering a new world order.

No where did he say: “Apple is successful in everything it does.” Nor did he say: “Apple is the dominant computer company!”

I picked a number of areas where Apple’s entry has changed the markets for the better. I knew what your response would be were I to mention computers, and as silly as it is, it is your opinion and thus not worth arguing over. Again, one can argue over whether iPhones and iPads are computers or not, and how important they are to the “computer industry” right now, but again, that would be opinion and not that interesting.

 

[ssgbryan]

You are still using the same broken logic.

1) apple has made no quantitative statements about performance. They have only provided a demo of an a12z and let you judge for yourself.

2) you asked “if arm is so fast why don’t banks use it” - the answer is that nobody has yet sold such a machine

3) then you argue “if nobody sells such a machine, apple can’t know how fast such a machine is.” That’s the dumbest part of the argument. Apple *has* such machines. Just because they aren’t on sale yet doesn’t mean apple doesn’t know how fast they are.

When I designed CPUs I knew how fast they’d be while I was still designing them. Think about it - do you think chip designers just do their thing and then hope for the best? We have specific performance targets that we are meant to hit, and the job of designing a chip is making sure you hit those targets.

Now, if the chip designer knows how fast the chip is going to be before it even exists, don’t you think that Apple, which has the actual chips in actual boxes and can actually test it, knows how fast they are?

And, again, I reiterate, apple has NOT made any claims about performance other than “it’s fast!”

Looking at the top Geekbench 5 results for an A12z (4615 multicore 8 cores), it has the same performance of an i7-8750H (6 core/12 thread @2.5Ghz). Personally, I don't view that as "fast".

It does have enough computing power to compete with low-end Intel or AMD laptops.

It is 1/3 the performance of a 3900XT, which will be replaced by a 4900X this fall.

Lot of work ahead of them to compete in the desktop marketplace.

 

[cmaier]

Looking at the top Geekbench 5 results for an A12z (4615 multicore 8 cores), it has the same performance of an i7-8750H (6 core/12 thread @2.5Ghz). Personally, I don't view that as "fast".

It does have enough computing power to compete with low-end Intel or AMD laptops.

It is 1/3 the performance of a 3900XT, which will be replaced by a 4900X this fall.

Lot of work ahead of them to compete in the desktop marketplace.

No. Lots of work behind them. They did it already. The a12z is a 2 year old processor. that means the design of it started around 4 years ago.

 

[Alan Wynn]

Definitely good on Apple for attaining that dominance in a more consumer friendly way than Microsoft. But now that they are in a more dominant position, are they acting in the consumer's best interest? You make a good case that they do, but I think we're now stuck where new advancement in many areas has to run through Cupertino.

You seem to have completely missed the main point. There is no market where they are dominant because they control it in some way. All these markets: Mobile Payments, Smart Watches, etc. they dominate because they are the only company that has created systems that actually get customers to use them. Even in their biggest market, the U.S. mobile phone market, they only control 40%. Google controls 60% and has a tiny share of the mobile payments market. It controls 60% and has almost none of the smart watch market.

There is no innovation from others in those markets because there is no innovation from others, not because Apple has in some way prevented it.

Again, great that they got here, but now innovation can only come from Cupertino.

Given that in order to use ApplePay, one needs an Apple Watch, an iPad, iPhone or Mac, all small shares of the overall market, what prevents innovation coming from somewhere else? Android is 60% of the market in the U.S., that seems like a pretty large greenfield in which someone can innovate, if they want to do so.

Completely agree. That's where my arguments are based.

You are not looking at the benefits to the consumer if you are talking about “sherlock”ing. That is all about benefit to the developer (that might as a secondary consequence scare someone out of the market). It is a consumer hostile attitude to say that once some tiny company comes up with a new idea, the major players cannot integrate into their own platforms and provide a better consumer experience to a wider market. If the other company’s product is that special, rather than something that should just be a feature of some bigger product, it will either get bought or survive on its own (see Dropbox and Box).

We disagree here - I think those policies do prevent innovation - they can choke it off. Is a huge problem today? Maybe not. But from things like sherlocking, to internal APIs that aren't available to external devs there's some of Apple making that playing field slightly less level.

They maybe completely limiting, but they only have 40% of their largest market. That means there is 60% still available to these innovators who you say are being are being choked off.

I wasn't clear there. I agree their silicon advancements sound great. I think Apple 'tech' has made great advancements. I think Apple 'business' - for those items mentioned above or in my last post - deserves scrutiny.

Apple Silicon exists because of Apple ‘business’. They are inseparable. The decision to take that risk is part and parcel of their whole enterprise.

I think we agree here - I should have said disruption... I think Apple's silicon innovation will help them define new kinds of exciting devices. I also think open source hardware will enable companies to mirror how Apple builds their silicon and bring us other new compute devices that aren't ipads/iphones/laptops. Hopefully they'll keep Apple on their toes.

Not sure that open source RISC-V chips are where the innovation will be, but I guess we will see.