That's what I'm hoping for. People are always holding out to buy their next Mac, because the updated model is supposedly just around the corner. Then we wait 5-6 years. Haha! A yearly update cycle would be welcome, and might even benefit Apple's sales figure. At least buyers don't feel like they're buying something old. A steady % performance gain each 18 months would be great.
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's A12Z Under Rosetta Outperforms Microsoft's Native Arm-Based Surface Pro X
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I think if you don't need or like macOS, Mac hardware was never gonna cut it for you. Really, you're better off in the Windows world with Windows-centric hardware. Good luck
That's plain ignorant. Nickgovier has never said he wouldn't "need" or "like" macOS, just that he requires Windows for a certain reason. That might be a single application he needs for his job or whatever reason else.I think if you don't need or like macOS, Mac hardware was never gonna cut it for you. Really, you're better off in the Windows world with Windows-centric hardware. Good luck
Yeah, no. If Boot Camp is a dealbreaker for them, they need Windows more than the macOS workflows, right? It seems like going around Windows is less possible for them than finding workarounds for the macOS workflow.
Many people likes to spend most of their time with MacOS, but they need some sort of Windows apps that are not available on a Mac, and I know many of those people. I believe that you are really underestimating the number of people in this situation.
Well, if so, they are free to get another Mac with an Intel processor - there's something for everyone next year. Don't get me wrong - I'm just all for the right tool for the right work. Windows for ARM never took off - and let's see how that one goes in the course of the next few years. If they get x86_64 working, it might be a paradigm shift. If not, and someone needs these apps, and not virtualized, but in Boot Camp, they are better off with a current machine.
no we are not.
I love ice cream. I also love French fries. There’s a company that makes French fry ice cream. No joke. But if I can’t get it? Then I have to choose, or buy them separately.
that’s life.
Why don’t these people go whine about Dell not making a machine that runs MacOS in Dell boot camp? Why is it incumbent on Apple to support a competing operating system that is ever-decreasingly important in the overall computing market space now that mobile is far bigger than the desktop/laptop market?
Actually, he pretty clearly says he does not need macOS when he says the he will not be getting another Mac. There will be at least one more generation of Intel Macs. When Apple stops making and/or supporting them, he has several options
- Have two machines (one running each OS).
- Find a macOS replacement for whatever Windows app he requires (even if it is not perfect) and only get a new Mac.
- Run the Windows app on a cloud or data center hosted system using the Mac as its display.
- Decide that he does not “like” or ”need” macOS enough and only get a new Windows machine.
In a perfect world, those specific business apps and most AAA games would be available in MacOS, with all its occasional hiccups, Mac's are a joy to use and IMHO best in class desktop machines. The brilliant fact that they're Unix machines (See Windows Linux subsystem efforts) makes them the best Unix/Linux package you can get, plus, you have top notch security, etc. For people like me that started computing as a Windows user, Apple is an upgrade from coach to first class. Every time I boot camp, its pain time, dreadful OS updates, drivers, control panel finicking, msconfig, services.msc, you name it. Now, we dont install Windows on a Mac because sadism, but because unlike the smartphone/tablet/watch market, Macs are not the dominant player in the desktop market. The ARM transition will only make this worse, unless two things happen IMHO, first and more important, Apple chips consistently outperform Intel/AMD -by a significant margin- thus becoming a synonym of performance, secondly, ala iPhone SE, having a cheaper entry price laptop so they become the go to desktop computing machine. I think Apple its well on its way to deliver number one.
Yup. That is why many who have a choice and really use the machine to make a living pick them over Windows.
Are you sure about that? I swear I saw a story on CNN about a paid Dom who used it as torture for her customers. (It may have been The Enquirer. Hard to remember.)
Well, gamers build/buy Windows systems because Apple/Intel dropped the ball on GPU performance for entry level systems and Windows machines were so cheap, that even macOS users who were also gamers, just got a second machine for gaming. That created a game market death spiral.
Business apps are different and fit into several categories.
- Apps that need high end, high performance, workstations (eCAD, mCAD, etc.). In these markets Apple sometimes has competitive machines, but not consistently enough to make it worth supporting.
- Very specialized apps for commodity users (i.e. unlike the previous group whose users are very skilled and need lots of training, these are low/lower skill jobs - or the skill is disconnected from the computer with much less training). Applications like call centers, data entry, office practice management, salon management, etc. where the need is lots of cheap systems. Again, Apple has sporadically competed in this space with the iMac and the Mac mini.
- Enterprise Apps. These are developed in house often by junior or lower skill developers (or overpriced consultants). Many of these were windows only because that was all the developers knew and/or the companies did not think Macs were important.
Here is where we disagree. While I agree if they do what you suggest, it will help, that is not the only way it can work.
For the first category, Apple needs a consistent, competitively-priced, high end presence to get people to port, but all they need to be viable is a great Citrix/Teradici/whatever client and a machine that can support it well. Many of these expensive, specialized apps have moved to either a SaaS model, or just a shared datacenter/cloud hosted system approach. If Apple succeeds on the former, some people may port, but overall, this is likely to be less important moving forward.
For the second category, many of these application are moving to the web, so anything that can support that can be used. Again, this means that if, as you said, Apple competes with and iPhone SE type entry-level machine, they can do well. On the other side, many of these apps have moved to the iPad (how many people have walked into a restaurant and seen an iPad at the host station and iPads in cases for managers/hosts walking around the restaurant?). These new Apple Silicon Macs will make it possible to have a Mac as the back office machine, running the same application in a window, but other business apps like Word/Excel/Powerpoint.
The last category is likely to be even more affected by this transition. Many of these enterprise apps are now web-based, but those that are not are way more likely to have iOS apps as an option. This unified structure makes it possible to just use the iOS/iPadOS version, to start, slowly encouraging better catalyst and/or SwiftUI apps with better macOS support as we move forward.
For all these approaches to work, they do not have to be ahead, they just have to be reasonable. However, if they are ahead, they could actually grow market share.
You're right, at least in terms of Apple strategy, their affordable Mac is called an iPad, I think Steve Jobs said it himself when introducing it as the middle device between a phone and a proper desktop computer, a place which was dominated by so called netbooks at the time, IaaS is trickling down, with the side effect that even macs are becoming obsolete, if you need crunching power, you pay it by the hour in the cloud. A Mac is a requirement -even just for signing and sending an app to the app store-, thus cloud services exists just for that use case. I would love to have a single device for everything, my iPhone, which has way better cpu & graphics than my 2019 macbook, could have the sufficient software support to hook to an external display, keyboard and mouse and become an iPad. We're in a transitional period not just within Apple, etc. but in terms of needing a desktop device altogether. The use cases, however, that specific app which is not cloud/web based, etc. That game you play with your friends. The access to a proper terminal and virtualization, can determine your purchase decision in the end. I will most probably end up transitioning to an ARM mac, but I'll sure hold on to an Intel one as long as I can.
"ever-decreasingly important" might be true, just as it's true that the sun is burning out; there are 1.55 trillion reasons that discontinuing windows support isn't trivial.
It would be interesting to know how much this is driven by the desire to continue to grow in the consumer space (which this move will certainly help towards) and at how much Apple expects to lose of the professional space in their calculus of cost benefit.
It's a great question and I have no idea - i've actually tried to research this in the past. Certain creative professionals (both corporate and non-corporate) and certain non corporate professionals? It seems a lot of developers use x86 laptops even though they could easily be using windows or linux I expect and there can't be 100s of millions of the them.
If the boring old stuff continues to migrate to cloud and the stuff that actually benefits from non-legacy processors is calculated locally, apple could really end up in more professional and corporate settings long term?
B
Bingo. Apple hardly has enterprise customers (they also abandoned the idea that the Mac be used as servers). Apple operates totally in the consumer space. And even their pro customers, like video editors and music producers, are very small -- and these pro apps are mostly maintained as a prestige thing, it's great for marketing, and because Apple maintains tight relationships with music and entertainment industry. Besides, Final Cut Pro X is probably used more by independent vloggers than in the large corporate setting.
The Mac hasn't really grown that much in years. The switch to Intel moved the needle a little, but how much can we attribute that growth to X86 compatibility, and how much can we attribute Mac growth to the boom of the iPhone? Even if we attribute the growth of the Mac to X86 compatibility, sales growth only went 4x from the switch in 2006 (from 5 million units to 19 million). And since 2012, sales of the Mac have stayed flat. One would think that because of X86 compatibility the sales of the Mac would have grown and grown each year, because buying a Mac would no longer mean being locked in. And yet, no growth. Flat sales each year. To me it says that there are only so many consumers willing to buy a Mac at this moment, despite being a full X86 computer. Of course, other factors have attributed to lackluster sales, like slow updates of Mac models (and Intel is partly to blame for this).
In the end, Apple wants growth of the Mac. Apple bets that the advantage of the Mac in the future will not lie in X86 compatibility. The advantages will lie with other outstanding features that will make the platform interesting to the consumer (X86 compatibility as a feature is only interesting to some extent to the consumer). And remember, most Macs sold are not desktops, but laptops, so it's here that Apple wants growth to happen. (And we'll probably have software like VirtualPC again for people who really need to run the Windows app occasionally.)
Last edited:
A substantial percentage of audio, motion graphics and video production professionals use Macs.
Those who want to develop for iOS and/or macOS need a Mac. Many others just like them because they have well supported commercial apps and a great development environment.
For enterprise apps, most have moved to the Web and/or have mobile versions (which mostly means iOS). Apple ability to natively run those apps on macOS will actually benefit it in the enterprise environment.
I don’t know, but I do know that IBM has shifted completely to MacBooks for internal use. Also, virtually every consultant in finance or data science in Denmark is using a MacBook.
I use a max spec’ed 16” for everyday work because of reliability and processing power that I don’t find at the price point with other manufacturers... Before the need for processing power arose, I used an iPad for remote desktop to a mid spec’ed Windows laptop sitting at home
I related question is "What percent of professional space to computers have?" What I mean is do people using computers at work actually use them in any way other than just email, documents, and web browsing. How man people actually make a living using photo or video or audio editors or CAD or software development tools. My guess is a tiny percent. Almost all computer users would be best off with a Chromebook or something like it.