And why does it "have" to be so? Everyone I know that owns a Mac, runs duel boot-some quadruple. I don't know everyone on this webisite, but I sure have read a Lot of people running Bootcamp over the years.
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.
Intel Expecting Apple to Transition to Custom ARM-Based Chips Starting in 2020
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
And why does it "have" to be so? Everyone I know that owns a Mac, runs duel boot-some quadruple. I don't know everyone on this webisite, but I sure have read a Lot of people running Bootcamp over the years.
That's the theory.
In reality iOS had this promise with apps working seamlessly between iPhone and iPad already. In the end it did not turn out all good. There is a lot of compromising to get it working somehow.
Even if 100% of mac owners dual boot (they don’t), that is still MUCH fewer people than own iPhones. There are simply many more iPhones around than macs. Apple has reported the mac installed base as 80 million. Apple has reported the iPhone installed base as 900 million. That means at least 820 million iPhone owners don’t own macs (more or less, ignoring that some people have multiple phones and/or multiple macs). So 820 million is bigger than 80 million. So, again, the number of iPhone owners that do not own macs HAS TO BE LARGER than the number of mac users who use boot camp, because 820 million is more than 10 times bigger than 80 million.
It’s just math.
It is interesting. But iOS app store is not Mac app store. iOS apps compete with Android apps. When iOS apps run on desktop, they need to compete with desktop apps. Can they do as well as or better than desktop apps ? If not, why customers will spend money on them?
I’m one of those who love the design and compact form factors of the Macs but run Windows on them. I just can’t seem to find a PC laptop that is as beautiful as the Macs.
Will the ARM chips be the end of being able to run Windows on the Macs? If so, I’ll need to remind myself to buy the latest version before the switch.
Thanks in advance for any info!
Will the ARM chips be the end of being able to run Windows on the Macs? If so, I’ll need to remind myself to buy the latest version before the switch.
Thanks in advance for any info!
They will have to, or you are right. But many of them will. Microsoft and adobe are already creating major applications for iOS. Some great games (civ vi, e.g.) run great on iOS. It’s a gargantuan market. In some cases great iOS apps will be modified to run even better on macs. That will be nice.
In other cases they will be ipad-ish apps that are not specially designed to take advantage of macs. That will be sad. But it will be an improvement over the current situation where many apps have NO mac version. Or where there is a mac version running on electron which sucks.
[doublepost=1550814358][/doublepost]
Probably yes.
I am the hub my family, friends, relations and colleagues turn to on computing advice.
If Apple does no longer deliver what I think is necessary for true computing (think college level math, statistics, engineering computing), I am out and all of whats left of Apple will be a fashion brand.
... said everyone on macrumors for the last 10 years...
swingerofbirch
macrumors 68040
Yeah, I mean if they have it running FCP X and most of the Adobe apps out of the gate, I could see the Mac Pro being the transition Mac.Only made it this far through your text and this is exactly the same thought I’ve had
Even though, performance per watt, Apple IS beating everyone, that’s admittedly benchmark performance. In reality, Apple CPU’s ONLY have to run macOS or iOS. And, if Apple designs their CPU’s to perform certain highly used macOS functions quickly, then it would always outperform the “generic” Intel processor that’s not tuned to run macOS as well.
Having said that, probably most likely to go into on of their ultra-thin laptops first as that would be the easiest application and give the industry more time to port their apps.
Yes, but you are talking worldwide-where computers will likely never be sold. iPhones are telecommunication device and has dual purpose as media device. The cost can be justified because of this (especially because prices around the globe are not the same), they would benefit from the battery life-but from my global travels into far reaching regions some people only make $5-$10 USD a day. Hard to believe they are the ones that would do anything but buy another iPhone if the chance presented itself; it would serve them better.
800 Million sold, how many are still operational?
Last edited:
As long as ARM Macs don't require you to install off the App Store, I'll be delighted.
The only reason anyone would want to clutch onto x86 is for Windows support and Apple never wanted Windows on their machines in the first place. Bootcamp was only grudgingly released after the massive news of the competition to get Win XP running on a Macbook was won.
The only reason anyone would want to clutch onto x86 is for Windows support and Apple never wanted Windows on their machines in the first place. Bootcamp was only grudgingly released after the massive news of the competition to get Win XP running on a Macbook was won.
Poor people aren’t buying iPhones. People spend $1000 on these things. They can spend $1000 on a mac with an arm chip too. And even if some don’t, you have to rule out a lot of people before 820 million becomes less than 80 million. Again, simple math - apple sells 300 or 400 million iPhones a year, at around $800 a pop. They sell around 20 million macs a year at around, what, $1300 a pop? If they can get some of those people who buy iPhones to also buy macs, its pretty easy to make up for closeted windows users who will be offended and not buy another mac (which they probably weren’t going to do anyway).
You didn’t believe when i told you iPhones blow away macs in terms of number of devices, that the number of iPhone users blows away the number of boot camp users, etc. I cite actual numbers, and now you change the argument to “hand wave hand wave iPhones are dual purpose those people wont buy macs hand wave hand wave.”
Give it up. Apple is aware of the math. They see the iPhone halo. They know that they can sell macs to iPhone users far more easily than they can sell them to windows users. That they can’t easily differentiate macs to be desirable to windows users, most of who are happy with dell or acer or whatever MacBook clone comes around at a much lower price. But they can sell macs to iPhone users and if they control the cpu they can control the features and integrate it with the OS in ways that the competition cannot.
[doublepost=1550815341][/doublepost]
Agreed. If you can’t sideload apps, then mac is dead to me, too. But I think that will always be the differentiating factor for mac vs. ipad. You can add a keyboard and someday maybe a mouse, etc. to an ipad, and its a baby MacBook, but the difference will be that you can’t sideload apps, and you take your chances re: security, stability, etc. compared to iOS.
I think this will be a Chromebook competitor and you will be out of luck.
No-I'm pointing out you have no absolute facts and that you are reiterating the same sales pitch that the article lays out. I'm at the user level were money is actually spent-and yes, I know I will be buying another computer. You are speculating on those that may have never owned one. If they drop the price to say $499'ish, it could be justified. But no way at current MacBook Anything prices.
I didn't call anyone poor-you did. I also could point out the huge stock liquidations of recent.
Also, I thought the percentage of recurring iPhone purchases were mostly upgrades.
Last edited:
Interesting, how is it you know so much about what Apple has in the lab? Their publicly visible work on the ARM platform has been optimized for making phones perform extremely well on low power. Those processors, running in an extremely compact environment, outperform a lot of laptops. When they go to ARM for the desktop, it's unlikely they'll just take their phone CPUs and use them unchanged in laptop/desktop machines. They'll do it after working up chips with much higher performance, to work within the power/thermal environment of a laptop or desktop, rather than a phone.
That would be pretty crazy since chips are usually closely tied to certain ranges of motherboards. But if they designed it that way from the start, anything is possible. Seems risky in case they have to change major things with the chips, and if it’s that close to release then why not provide the option? Maybe this report is actually about December 2019 and not 2020. Maybe it will be like the iMac Pro and be unveiled at WWDC and be released at the very end of the year just barely making it in time.
On the one hand I feel like they might start with MacBooks because they can start at the lower end, but MacBooks are what they ship the most of. They’ve already produced the A12X which is basically faster than anything below the 15” MBP from 2018 and faster than most Macs 2017 and earlier. So why build something with lower end performance first? Maybe lower volume makes more sense, and the Mac Pro would be the lowest volume Mac they sell. Start slow with that and perfect it. But then if it doesn’t work well or with all software you risk pissing off a bunch of Pros. There are reasons for going both ways. Blah!
This won't be a major blow to Intel, they will retain most of the 5% that Apple represented. It just won't be via Apple hardware. Apple for the loss.
I cited facts. Those numbers were facts. Would U.S.-only numbers convince you? Would anything?
Is it really your contention that Apple can somehow increase their annual sales of macs to numbers that make it interesting enough for them to keep putting effort into macs simply by continuing to sell macs to people who already buy macs? Because they’ve been trying that for an awfully long time, and mac sales have been absolutely flat for years. If you can’t accept that selling macs to a tiny percentage of iPhone/non-mac users would result in more sales than selling to boot camp users, despite me proving that the numbers are overwhelmingly supportive of that fact, than nothing will convince you. But when you say “you have absolutely no facts” in the face of the actual numbers, that’s just silly ********.
[doublepost=1550816867][/doublepost]
It’s not a zero sum game. Apple can win without Intel losing. And being able to actually differentiate their hardware from the competition, while providing a more alluring architecture for developers, seems like a win.
Not every sale of an iPhone is to a new users-I can account for 5 myself, plus attrition. I would think someone making an educated guess would only start with base number's of any analysis. Yes-I am poking holes where you are stumbling in you leaps of faith, thats how peer review works. At best, you're looking at a factor of 2-not 4;i.e., 50/50 chances it will work- and thats only if I and current users stay. I'd need a BoM to calculate what the ROI on each machine might be and whether it would be profitable-but let's not quibble anymore.
Last edited:
“Installed base” numbers reported by apple mean phones in use - phones that still contact the App Store, etc. As I said, families might have more than one phone or more than one mac, which skews the numbers a bit. But phones sitting in a box don’t count. These are active devices. You are not “poking holes.” You are making up arguments and providing no numbers. Apple says there are 900 million ACTIVE IN-USE iPhones right now - they’ve sold many more than that, but many of them are not in use. That is around 900 million individuals using iPhones. Very few people actively use more than one iPhone (though more than one may be in a household).
There are 80 million active macs. That is macs that are being used and not retired to a shelf. Some people may own more than one, and there may be more than one in a family, just like phones. But, again, overall, there are 10x more iphone users than mac users out there. Your “at best 2-not 4” is just made up. (And the number are more like a factor of 10) The ROI has been reported by apple to be around 38%, and analysts say thats about the same for macs and iPhones.
I would argue that you are making assumptions that are only possibilities of the world outside the US, and my experiences differ from the leap of faith you are making. You are using American logic-which I get. I just don't think the global market is going to be as excited as you seem to be-and I do my best to not make assumptions; maybe I'm wrong and my reservations are unfounded, but your claims of definitive success are at best you being hopeful.
That's my biggest point.
Best luck-I'm just hoping the Pro lines stay Intel as long as possible.