Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Hardly. ARM processors have been used for years
It's not just that an ARM processor is being used. That would hardly be exciting.

It's the fully custom, designed, integrated set of systems (one of which is a custom CPU using the ARM instruction set) that are working in tight cooperation on the same die that makes all the difference.

Claims that 'this I just an ARM CPU, nothing new here' are deceptively reductionist. :(
 
Last edited:
1ah5052anw941.jpg
 
Competition is always good
This sadly is not a case of competition. For Apple at least.

And in fact, I really see this as a big problem for Apple potentially.

Apple is in the hardware business. And they want to sell the most expensive Mac models they can.
They want to avoid a "race to the bottom".

Google is not in the hardware business much, and certainly not in the "expensive hardware" business.
So they -are- interested in a race to the bottom.

If Google can produce a custom chip that is twice as fast as current Chromebook CPUs, yet at a lower cost, then they will be able to offer decent performance Chromebooks for super-cheap.

But Apple is not in that market. In fact, they cannot be because they would hurt their MacBook Pro sales.
Which is why Apple banks on iPads for schools.
But the market is clear about schools wanting cheap laptops rather than iPads with no keyboards. Yet iPads even with cheap keyboards are typically more expensive than Chromebooks. If Chromebooks can undercut their current prices even more (due to custom CPU savings) while greatly increasing their performance, Apple really has a problem...
 
Weird. Aren't Chromebooks basically dumb terminals meant to connect to powerful mainfra-- err, "the cloud"? What do they need powerful chips for? I guess battery life... and maybe cheaper to produce in the long run? Maybe I should read the article instead of being 'that guy' and only reading the headline!
 
This sadly is not a case of competition. For Apple at least.

And in fact, I really see this as a big problem for Apple potentially.

Apple is in the hardware business. And they want to sell the most expensive Mac models they can.
They want to avoid a "race to the bottom".

Google is not in the hardware business much, and certainly not in the "expensive hardware" business.
So they -are- interested in a race to the bottom.

If Google can produce a custom chip that is twice as fast as current Chromebook CPUs, yet at a lower cost, then they will be able to offer decent performance Chromebooks for super-cheap.

But Apple is not in that market. In fact, they cannot be because they would hurt their MacBook Pro sales.
Which is why Apple banks on iPads for schools.
But the market is clear about schools wanting cheap laptops rather than iPads with no keyboards. Yet iPads even with cheap keyboards are typically more expensive than Chromebooks. If Chromebooks can undercut their current prices even more (due to custom CPU savings) while greatly increasing their performance, Apple really has a problem...
Soooo, in other words, it's competition. If it wasn't, then Apple wouldn't have a problem.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PC_tech
Soooo, in other words, it's competition. If it wasn't, then Apple wouldn't have a problem.
It is not competition because Chrombooks are in a market where Apple by definition cannot play. Or they would ruin their more expensive hardware sales.

Those custom CPU Chromebooks will likely severely affect the mid- to low-end iPad market. That is the problem Apple has.
And Apple cannot do anything about this! They -could- of course introduce a new 12"/13" MacBook at the same price level as those Chrombooks. But they won't as this would kill their MacBook Pro sales. So Apple cannot go that way.

Google however does not have the problem. It does not offer high-end Chromebook Pro models, so it won't ruin its own market with cheaper more powerful Chromebooks.

There is no competition. It is just bad news for Apple's mid- to low-end iPad markets.
And Apple cannot compete in that market because it would ruin its high-end margins on its higher end products - which they will never give up.
 
Over simplification is FUN!
Not really, it's a fact that software-wise Apple is a follower, not a leader. Apple TV trying to be Netflix, Apple Fitness is copying Peloton. Even the things that Apple was "first" to adapt has been surpassed. Like Siri.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PC_tech
Hardware maybe. Everything apple has done software wise has been copy others. Apple Maps is a carbon copy of Google Maps. The weather app is now like Dark Sky which apple bought. Apple Music is trying to be Spotify etc.

I would beg to differ. Have you tried Apple Maps lately? The instructions they give are much better than google maps.

Google Maps: In 500 meters turn left.

Apple Maps: At the next light, turn left.

You tell me which makes more sense to the average person.
 
Slavishly copying iOS to create Android worked pretty well...
Has it though? They don’t sell much Android hardware. If it’s driving their other services, which is a possibility, strange that they still feel the need to pay Apple $15B to be the default search engine this year.
 
Apple founded ARM with Acorn and VLSI. With Apple having the largest share 44%.

Acorn Computers founded ARM in 1981. The architecture has been around for quite some time. Apple formed an alliance with them in the late eighties to early nineties to work on ARM6, which morphed into the Newton PDA. Apple never founded ARM.

 
I am going to be totally honest with everyone about my thoughts regarding future device purchases. I have given my computing needs a serious evaluation over the past week. My M1 MBP I bought back in 2020 has been a great machine; been using it do a couple job interviews, updating my resume and other work activities. But, looking beyond its life cycle, my view is that I really am not using desktop apps in way to even justify needing a Windows or Mac computer anymore. Take for instance the job interviews I did this week. I could have easily done them through a web browser. Although the process was smooth downloading Web Ex, its just I feel like I really don’t need all the power of a Windows or macOS anymore.

I feel like this also extends to even the iPad and iPhone. Many of you have likely seen my posts about 2023 being a major upgrade year for me in terms of new iPhone, Apple Watch and iPad and maybe a larger screen iMac. But I feel like its becoming too much, right now, my room looks like a computer lab between Windows, Mac and iOS devices. I just think its time to consolidate. This a first world problem of course, but the simplicity I am looking for seems to be from Google. The only thing thats holding me back is my local Music (iTunes) library and how I would migrate that to a Chromebook style device. Other concerns are browser choice, I am after all browser agnostic and use the major three (Safari, Chrome and Firefox). That choice is gonna go out the window even though I would say Chrome is already my primary option.

Don’t get me wrong, the Mac has been good to me, solid OS that just works, again, its just that, I spend so much time in a web browser these days to not justify needing a desktop OS. So, in 2023, I will be at a cross roads. If I lean Google, I see myself getting Chromebook, Pixel and maybe a Samsung tablet to replace my iPad.
 
I still don't get why Google is wasting money on hardware and "custom" chips (read: modified Exynos's). Slavishly copying Apple hasn't worked for anyone else, why should it work for them?
You think Apple is the only company that can produce a processor? Android was a copy of iOS and it's outselling iOS by about 6 to 1.

 
I still don't get why Google is wasting money on hardware and "custom" chips (read: modified Exynos's). Slavishly copying Apple hasn't worked for anyone else, why should it work for them?
Well, they've been making their own server chips for decades. Nothing special.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.