Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Bloomberg: First Mac With Apple Silicon Will Be Announced in November

DVD9 said:
Should have switched to AMD Ryzen.
Click to expand...

The whole reason that Apple brought CPU designs in-house was because it will become a competitive advantage over the next few years, much like the PowerPC days. Ryzen is the fastest consumer-facing CPU out at the moment, but Intel could just as easily leapfrog them in the future. Sticking with a third party solution designed for a huge number of OEMs means that Apple will always be limited in how much optimization it can do. As we saw with iOS devices, Apple has been able to squeeze out so much more performance and power efficiency with inferior specs (on paper) when it is able to create its own custom solutions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Unregistered 4U and Lesser Evets
Probably 12' to 13' inch MacBook (Air). In best case scenario 13' in 12' case, but i doubt they will do the effort. I'm actually more keen on pricing. Are they gonna keep relative the same pricing, and match up the ARM to perform for those money, since they bought expensively from Intel or they will rather try to give you better performance for a little bit more base money? We all know Apple is greedy as hell and won't miss a chance to rise the price bar anytime they think it's the moment to take advantage. I won't be surprised to hear them saying on November event "In Apple we like to give you the best and the prices are bam (100$ more for the basic). Our ARM will blow your mind. We can't wait for you to try it.."
 
AAPLGeek said:
In Apple’s case, it has everything to do with it.

Big Sur’s UI has been heavily iOSified to make iOS/Catalyst apps not look crappy and out of place on the new ARM machines.
Click to expand...
This has nothing to Do with arm. Apple has been merging the feature sets and look and feel for awhile.
 
It is, also, very possible Apple not wanting to put best ARM chip on entry level MB and place it second best performing after iPad Pro. ARM will be better over Intel, but they won't cannibalize their own sales if giving much better chip to MB at least not today. I don't see Apple doing it, purposefully
 
SWAON said:
It is, also, very possible Apple not wanting to put best ARM chip on entry level MB and place it second best performing after iPad Pro. ARM will be better over Intel, but they won't cannibalize their own sales if giving much better chip to MB at least not today. I don't see Apple doing it, purposefully
Click to expand...
Apple has never cared about cannibalizing it’s own sales. Ever. If they did, iPads wouldn’t exist. Nor would iPhone, which destroyed the iPod market.
 
Yes true, still we'll see some base ARM chip, that was my point.. how it will perform compared to the rest will be seen.
 
cmaier said:
Apple has never cared about cannibalizing it’s own sales. Ever. If they did, iPads wouldn’t exist. Nor would iPhone, which destroyed the iPod market.
Click to expand...
The iPhone was a logical progression of the iPod. It got iPods in more pockets than iPods themselves ever did.
Heck, how many iPods ever sold worldwide? 400 million?
iPhones have sold, what, 217 million... in 2018 alone. Over 2 billion total units.
Throw iPod and iPhone sales on a graph and you'll realise you're looking at the same product.
"Apple has never cared about cannibalising their own sales, if they cared they would have never released the iPod nano, which destroyed the iPod mini market. Or the iPod nano 2nd gen, which destroyed the iPod nano 1st gen market"
 
SWAON said:
It is, also, very possible Apple not wanting to put best ARM chip on entry level MB and place it second best performing after iPad Pro. ARM will be better over Intel, but they won't cannibalize their own sales if giving much better chip to MB at least not today. I don't see Apple doing it, purposefully
Click to expand...

Agreed. I can see them staggering the processors through the Mac lineup like they do with the iPad product line regular and Pro models.
 
szw-mapple fan said:
The whole reason that Apple brought CPU designs in-house was because it will become a competitive advantage over the next few years, much like the PowerPC days.
Click to expand...

So why did Apple ditch PowerPC chips for Intel?

Circular thinking. The circle is now complete.
 
Unregistered 4U said:
You know... ALL they have to do to stay with INTEL is just, you know, NOT buy a new computer? Probably lot easier than re-buying all their software for another platform (and possibly finding replacements for some software that’s not available).
Click to expand...

This is just kicking the can down the road. Same deal with not upgrading to a new OS version because you don't like changes in it.

Eventually the hardware and software version you're on will lose support and will become more and more painful to use. Ask people who tried to stay with a PowerPC Mac post-2006.
 
Donpa said:
I think its likely that the new silicon will blow intel away on the initial launch
Click to expand...

Think you’re dreaming there.
Maconplasma said:
No disrespect but I think at this point since Apple has reached well over 2 trillion dollars in valuation and one of the top largest companies worldwide most people will agree that Apple knows what they are doing. Unless you're inside their labs or R&D centers then you're making some wild assumptions.
Click to expand...

What they are valued at has no bearing on the quality of products they can produce. Big companies produce crap products all the time.

They know how to make money by overcharging what their products are worth, yes. Thats all that valuation shows.
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: Maconplasma
iBug2 said:
Because Intel offered more performance per watt. ARM now offers the same thing over Intel. The same logic prevails.
Click to expand...

AMD offers the best performance with Ryzen chips. Apple is stepping back. Thei9r move was to ditch Intel for Ryzen unless they can take on AMD, and I don't see that. I see Apple dumping truck loads of propaganda on us as they did for years with PowerPC before everyone including their compensated associates in the tech media said "Enough!".

Apple claimed right up to the very day they adopted Intel that their PowerPC Macs were faster than Intel PCs even though everyone could see the difference was striking and it was Intel that was much faster.

This is going to be like that.
 
SkyVelleity said:
The iPhone was a logical progression of the iPod. It got iPods in more pockets than iPods themselves ever did.
Heck, how many iPods ever sold worldwide? 400 million?
iPhones have sold, what, 217 million... in 2018 alone. Over 2 billion total units.
Throw iPod and iPhone sales on a graph and you'll realise you're looking at the same product.
"Apple has never cared about cannibalising their own sales, if they cared they would have never released the iPod nano, which destroyed the iPod mini market. Or the iPod nano 2nd gen, which destroyed the iPod nano 1st gen market"
Click to expand...

So? It still proves my point. Apole always cannibalizes its own market, which is why it’s been successful. As apple executives have said many times in interviews “we’d rather cannibalize our own products’ markets than let the competition do it.”
 
  • Like
Reactions: rp2011
DVD9 said:
AMD offers the best performance with Ryzen chips. Apple is stepping back. Thei9r move was to ditch Intel for Ryzen unless they can take on AMD, and I don't see that. I see Apple dumping truck loads of propaganda on us as they did for years with PowerPC before everyone including their compensated associates in the tech media said "Enough!".

Apple claimed right up to the very day they adopted Intel that their PowerPC Macs were faster than Intel PCs even though everyone could see the difference was striking and it was Intel that was much faster.

This is going to be like that.
Click to expand...
X86 is basically over, and Apple doesnt need it. Not the legacy duff, not the overheating and power consumption.
Apple has the economy of scale to support it’s own roadmap and technologies, to start with a fresh sheet of paper and make chips that optimize what Apple solely wants and needs, not the overhead for all Windows PC’s and applications that have ever existed.
And it’s good for the industry and consumers. There needs to be competition instead of one homogenous monopoly or duopoly. The more ideas the better in advancing computer technologies.
Let’s not forget, when Intel or anyone has total control of a market, it creates laziness and stagnation. That’s how AMD was able to take on a giant that was able to get away with the least it could. And only the economy of scale that Apple could bring to the table could anyone have a shot at making an alternative viable.
 
Last edited:
iBug2 said:
I think ARM macs will blow out the similar intel machines. Exactly like Intel did blow away PPC Macs in 2006.
Click to expand...

Think they’ll be similar or slightly slower in the first wave of machines. Dont believe there will be as big a difference as there was from PPC to Intel.
 
Hope they release it, the sooner they put out gen1, the sooner gen2 and 3 come out, which I will probably wait for
 
zorinlynx said:
The Apple II was actually hobbled because Apple didn't want it to compete with the Mac.
Click to expand...
Some would say the Mac today is intentionally hobbled due to the lack of a touch interface. The truth still remains, though, that obsolescence and new generation solutions are par for the course for Apple.
Kierkegaarden said:
It may just come down to software for some. In my case, my most used apps are Sketch, Keynote, Pages, PDF Expert, and Mail. Sketch is only available on Mac, and Keynote and Pages are excellent on Mac — whereas PDF Expert and Mail are excellent on iPad, but Keynote and Pages are frustrating on iPad. So because of software, I need both!
Click to expand...
Now, consider the person that has NEVER used a Mac and that gets along just fine with Keynote and Pages on the iPad... those are today’s customers that are buying iPads in HUGE numbers. Just like CLI was foreign to folks that grew up on a GUI, today’s GUI will be foreign to those that grow up using touch screens.

(I do the lions share of the work I do in Keynote for iPad now. There are some things that are easier on the desktop, but, more often than not, my iPad is “right there” when I’m ready to create, so I work through the limitations. Same with Garageband... and I hear rumors that something big is coming related to iPad Music creation and the iPad :)

I completely believe that Apple will continue to sell Macs to folks that want to buy them, but “folks that want to buy them” is going to decrease over time. The cheaper they are to make (and part of that is not paying licensing fees to Intel), the more likely they’ll continue to make them as the numbers of folks that want Macs shrink.
 
cmaier said:
Apple has never cared about cannibalizing it’s own sales. Ever. If they did, iPads wouldn’t exist. Nor would iPhone, which destroyed the iPod market.
Click to expand...
It destroyed the iPod market and with the intro of large-screen iPhones, took the wind out of the sails of the iPad / tablet market.
 
Unregistered 4U said:
I completely believe that Apple will continue to sell Macs to folks that want to buy them, but “folks that want to buy them” is going to decrease over time.
Click to expand...
Then why go through all trouble pouring time and money into creating a custom SoC for a shrinking product line? Makes zero sense.
 
smulji said:
It destroyed the iPod market and with the intro of large-screen iPhones, took the wind out of the sails of the iPad / tablet market.
Click to expand...
Also true.

In the end, if apple decides not to sell a product because they are afraid of it hurting sales of some other thing they sell, the competition will do it. Better, from apple’s perspective, that they do it themselves.
 
  • Love
Reactions: smulji
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back