Probably because they were using a old UI toolkit like wxwidgets or so, instead of e.g. QT.
Last edited:
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 Processor Market Share May Fall to New Low Next Year Due to Apple Silicon
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It depends on what type of work you do. I much prefer Mac OS to Windows but if I have to use commercial engineering simulation software I usually need to run Windows. There are a few packages written as cross platform (I assume using Java) but most of the time Windows is required. Even installing Windows on a Mac might not suffice because of artificial constraints Apple places such as not allowing NVidia hardware compatibility. Apple likes to shape its customers taste and I guess they like to follow. But when there is work that needs to be done, adding unnecessary constraints just limits the available solutions to a problem.
Let’s get things straight
AMD doesn’t produce anything = AMD doesn’t have the ability to produce… soooo yay?TSMC yearly produces more chips for Apple in the way of iPhone and iPad processors than AMD have ever been able to have TSMC produce.
What? They’ve already replaced several versions of i3’s i5’s and i7’s running at different speeds with the M1. All that’s left is the i9 and the Xeon… so replacing 12 SKU’s with, like 4 won’t be easy? Ok! You’re the chip and system integration designer!
Post back here the FIRST quarter TSMC’s output of AMD’s chips becomes even HALF of Intel’s
Is intel going IBM way? Bad management, no innovation, extremely short-term vision (to appease stockholders). Though I must say that beating IBM is hard, they are good at financial engineering too (how do I know ).
I don't need a windows machine but I hope that MS releases a windows version for M1.
).I don't need a windows machine but I hope that MS releases a windows version for M1.
Of course those iPhone chips are quite tiny so making a lot of them is easy. Making a PS5 chip is different, yields are way lower. And this is the thing, Apple won't just sacrifice iPhone production capacity in favour of Macs. They could but then they will miss on iPhone sales and I'm sure they don't want that. Also as they need to bid more and more for capacity at TSMC costs will continue to increase which in the end will make it more expensive for them to use their own chips vs chips from a 3rd party like Intel. The reason Apple has more capacity reserved at TSMC is because they just outbid AMD but in terms of PC SKU's I don't see any reason they could right now push higher volume production than AMD.Let’s get things straight
TSMC yearly produces more chips for Apple in the way of iPhone and iPad processors than AMD have ever been able to have TSMC produce.
What? They’ve already replaced several versions of i3’s i5’s and i7’s running at different speeds with the M1. All that’s left is the i9 and the Xeon… so replacing 12 SKU’s with, like 4 won’t be easy? Ok! You’re the chip and system integration designer!
Post back here the FIRST quarter TSMC’s output of AMD’s chips becomes even HALF of Intel’s
Also when I was talking about SKU's I was thinking more about feature sets, PCI Lanes, RAM support(triple channel, quad channel etc), storage support, I/O and so on, not necessary performance.
M1 has a clear advantage in efficiency especially thanks to TSMC's 5nm but as Intel will catch up in this department 1 chip vs multiple versions from Intel won't be enough.
Talking about the total output of AMD chips at TSMC Vs Intel's total output isn't that relevant for the future. Most of the CPUs Intel makes right now are on the dinosaur 14nm while most of AMD's CPUs are on 7nm. A more relevent comparisons would be 7nm AMD CPUs vs 10nm Intel CPUs. Intel's advantage here is way lower. The thing is the 7nm AMD uses can easily be relevant in the next 2 years especially improved versions of it like 6nm while Intel's 14nm is already totally uncompetitive in terms of performance and efficiency. This is where AMD will win market share going forward, at the high end. So AMD is a threat going forward and a bigger one than Apple because they are going after Intel's highest margin market.
Last edited:
May look like macOS tho NT and UNIX are world’s apart.
with Microsoft going back on it’s word as 10 would be the last major version and others 10.x improvements I suspect Windows 11 is to address the adoption of ARM like Apple did with macOS 11 so next version of Windows most likely be 12 like macOS 12 further improving the OS for ARM and slowly drop support for intel
Last edited:
- "Who cares"? Well, first, that’s an odd question to ask on an Apple-specific forum. Who cared what the inside and back of a Mac looked like? Steve famously did. Yeah, tools work even if they don’t look and feel good. But because of how our human brains work, tools work better if their maker took aesthetics into account.
- The inconsistency here belies dysfunction or lack of attention at Microsoft. We’re not talking about a feature that hasn’t been touched for a few years. We’re talking about long-standing inconsistency, for literally decades at this point.
- What does it say to third-party developers, whom Microsoft tries to court to use their UI frameworks (the new thing is WPF! No, it’s Silverlight! No, UWA! Err, UWP! Blazor! MAUI! WinUI 3!) when they can’t or won’t move their own stuff to them? It’s very “do as we say, not as we do”. Apple is vastly different in that regard. The primary Mac UI framework is, and has been for two decades, Cocoa/AppKit. The primary iPhone UI framework is, and has been since inception, Cocoa Touch/UIKit. Then there’s a way to help move UIKit apps to the Mac, and finally, for simpler apps and perhaps in the long run for all apps, there is the ongoing SwiftUI project. That’s it. Almost nothing Apple does doesn’t fit into those neat categories. There’s a simple, rather consistent story. Microsoft, for some reason, is institutionally unable or unwilling to do the same and dogfood their APIs, and that’s fair to criticize.
You start out in the current-era UI!
But that's too limiting, so you move to the Vista-era UI!
Unsure why that exists, you scratch your head and move on to the Windows XP-era UI:
And that finally brings us to the one from Windows 2000, including nested modal dialogs.
Does anyone at Microsoft think "oh yeah, that Disk Management UI we wrote in the late 90s and shipped in Windows 2000 is exactly as it should be in 2021"? No.
Last edited:
There were several products for porting Windows apps to Unix, Mainsoft was one, Wind/U another. They both emulated the Windows registry.
wxWidgets uses the platform's controls so I doubt it was that.
All too many things do not display adequately! Display areas that only show a few characters (e.g. 20 characters but the text can be a hundred characters long), three lines of dozens or more.
Specific example: Registry editor - the Name column allows about 17 characters when many names are double that, or more. The Edit String box which is far too small to display the entire text that is sometimes required. So you end up having to, more or less, edit it semi-blind. You think you put the right thing in, you can scroll back and forth, but you can't see the whole thing at once.
Not really, since, as an average customer, if I can outfit my 3000 person company with Intel laptops for a price I like, I don’t care if they’re 14nm or 7nm, I ONLY care that they’re available to buy
Anyway, the point I made was related to AMD’s inability to acquire, from TSMC, the ability to produce enough processors to seriously challenge Intel’s current lead. HOWEVER, in the best information I have access to as of now (which appears based on whether or not folks have run a piece of benchmark software, which is not the MOST scientific), it appears that AMD has been able to increase marketshare at least among folks that run this particular benchmark package. Such that, AMD shows to have passed Intel in desktop and, in just the last year, made significant gains against Intel in mobile.
So, if these benchmark results hold true among CPU’s in general, THEN Apple dropping out of the picture is actually going to look far worse for Intel than I’d originally thought. Within a year or so, even if AMD’s sales stay the same (which I think they’ll increase), with Apple taking 20 million sales a year away from Intel, Intel’s share of the market is going to look that much worse than it would have otherwise. Because, as the marketshare numbers are a percent of 100% with a chunk coming off of Intel’s side, Apple’s exit is what’s going to make any AMD growth look much better.
interesting, but its apps that really prove a point home.. No one is gong to use a faster machine (no matter how fast Apple gets the M1 if the apps are not there)
Everyone moves to the M1 for performance, and a few apps are moving along slowly (catching up) as 'native' i don't think just raw power is enough.. It'll hep to lower Intel a bit sure, but its not gonna have a major problem.
Intel is aggresive now with what it ca do to win back people, but any company would be in the same position. Apple being a smaller market share over Intel, and always will be, is proof of that...
More are moving to Apple, but it won't be 90% of users worldwide, due to where the apps are, and work cross in windows etc.
80% is a big downfall anyway
Everyone moves to the M1 for performance, and a few apps are moving along slowly (catching up) as 'native' i don't think just raw power is enough.. It'll hep to lower Intel a bit sure, but its not gonna have a major problem.
Intel is aggresive now with what it ca do to win back people, but any company would be in the same position. Apple being a smaller market share over Intel, and always will be, is proof of that...
More are moving to Apple, but it won't be 90% of users worldwide, due to where the apps are, and work cross in windows etc.
80% is a big downfall anyway
Intel is just kinda ubiquitous and another dinosaur sinking in a tar-pit from the olden days thanks to extremely poor management over the past years. Yes they rule the server market and good for them, I hope they can continue in some manner. At the end of the day I guess it depends on what optics you use to examine the company ... as a PubCo Intel is owned by the shareholders and beholden to them. The board works for me -- as a shareholder -- and the fiduciary duty of the board is to ensure the CEO and management are fulfilling their obligations to act in the best interest of the shareholders and leading the company in profitable directions.
In a direct comparison to Apple, the time-span 2000 - 2020, has seen Intel move not at all ... they walked off a cliff, chugged along, and slowly climbed back up the cliff in share-price to arrive back at a stock price that has not moved in 20 years (not accounting for the fact that 2021 dollars are worth less than 2000 dollars).
They have accomplished not too much in 20 years except slowly spinning in a big circle: https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/INTC?p=INTC&.tsrc=fin-srch
Contrasting above to Apple enters ludicrous territory. Intel is quite "small" with a current market cap of only $224 billion, vs. Apple being the first company to surpass a $1 trillion market cap, which currently sits @ $2.1 trillion.
finance.yahoo.com
Whether people love or hate Wall St., the reality is that public companies are beholden to, and owned by, the shareholders. In this regard Intel is a spectacular failure and their management s---ks; whereas Apple has been a phenomenal success and essentially printed an avalanche of cash for shareholders (while also making cool products that are a pleasure to use).
Having said all of the above, currently typing this on a Mac Pro using Intel's XEON CPUs, which are unlikely to change for the foreseeable future. I just find the "Intel vs. Apple" focus a bit silly. As a public company, Intel got left in the dust ages ago by Apple. Within the server space, Intel is still the dinosaur that could. Within the mobile space, they're completely irrelevant. As a CPU maker for desktop and laptop computers, I guess we're about to find out.
TSM (TSMC) has done quite well laid across the same timeline, 20x bagger: https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/TSM?p=TSM&.tsrc=fin-srch -- within the past 2 years their performance is fantastic.
AMD laid across the same 20 year timeline has been an 8-9bagger. Not anywhere near AAPL territory, and their fortunes are tied to TSMC, but they too are doing really well in the past few years.
In a direct comparison to Apple, the time-span 2000 - 2020, has seen Intel move not at all ... they walked off a cliff, chugged along, and slowly climbed back up the cliff in share-price to arrive back at a stock price that has not moved in 20 years (not accounting for the fact that 2021 dollars are worth less than 2000 dollars).
They have accomplished not too much in 20 years except slowly spinning in a big circle: https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/INTC?p=INTC&.tsrc=fin-srch
Contrasting above to Apple enters ludicrous territory. Intel is quite "small" with a current market cap of only $224 billion, vs. Apple being the first company to surpass a $1 trillion market cap, which currently sits @ $2.1 trillion.
Apple Inc. (AAPL) Stock Price, News, Quote & History - Yahoo Finance
Find the latest Apple Inc. (AAPL) stock quote, history, news and other vital information to help you with your stock trading and investing.
finance.yahoo.com
Whether people love or hate Wall St., the reality is that public companies are beholden to, and owned by, the shareholders. In this regard Intel is a spectacular failure and their management s---ks; whereas Apple has been a phenomenal success and essentially printed an avalanche of cash for shareholders (while also making cool products that are a pleasure to use).
Having said all of the above, currently typing this on a Mac Pro using Intel's XEON CPUs, which are unlikely to change for the foreseeable future. I just find the "Intel vs. Apple" focus a bit silly. As a public company, Intel got left in the dust ages ago by Apple. Within the server space, Intel is still the dinosaur that could. Within the mobile space, they're completely irrelevant. As a CPU maker for desktop and laptop computers, I guess we're about to find out.
TSM (TSMC) has done quite well laid across the same timeline, 20x bagger: https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/TSM?p=TSM&.tsrc=fin-srch -- within the past 2 years their performance is fantastic.
AMD laid across the same 20 year timeline has been an 8-9bagger. Not anywhere near AAPL territory, and their fortunes are tied to TSMC, but they too are doing really well in the past few years.
haha what a classic scene. Ok, maybe not for Don but imagine what he'd think of Apple having a market share of less than 8.5% when it comes to computers? He'd freak out!
Not really. The whole market grew in 2020 en H1/2021 due to working from home. Yes, Apple shipped more Macs, but their market share shrank because Dell and other PC suppliers did better.
And Dell, HP, ACER, Lenovo and others can't buy the M1 to use in their devices so they only can go to Intel or AMD and will continue to do so. By now the AMD Ryzen 5000 and Intel 11th generation are matching or surpassing the M1. You know it is mostly Marketing BS around what is better or have greater performance. Just look to the AMD Ryzen 5800U (also 15Watt laptop CPU) in comparison with the M1.
Apple needs Microsoft for the simple reason of their Office365 software. Microsoft will not release Windows on ARM optimized for the M1 for the simple reason it cannot get access to parts of the M1, such as the security enclave. It is not of any interest to Apple that you run a competing Operating System on their Macbooks.
You compare apples with pears. Intel primarily designs and manufactures processors and chipsets (yes every PC/laptop has a chipset from Intel or AMD); Apple's primary business is to make devices and design partly their own chips (A[X] processor, M1 processor, T2 security chip), but doesn't sell their processor to other manufacturers (so Dell, HP, Acer, Lenovo etc have to turn to AMD or Intel). Apple relies on TSMC for manufacturing those chips (but have switched from manufacturing before - Samsung was their earlier manufacturer of A[X] processors). So many other chips in your iphone/ipad/Mac they buy from Qualcomm, SK-Hynix, NXP, Broadcom, Samsung, TI and others. The RAM chips in the M1 for example are supplied by SK-Hynix. Broadcom provided the Wifi chips in your Macbook.Intel is just kinda ubiquitous and another dinosaur sinking in a tar-pit from the olden days thanks to extremely poor management over the past years. Yes they rule the server market and good for them, I hope they can continue in some manner. At the end of the day I guess it depends on what optics you use to examine the company ... as a PubCo Intel is owned by the shareholders and beholden to them. The board works for me -- as a shareholder -- and the fiduciary duty of the board is to ensure the CEO and management are fulfilling their obligations to act in the best interest of the shareholders and leading the company in profitable directions.
In a direct comparison to Apple, the time-span 2000 - 2020, has seen Intel move not at all ... they walked off a cliff, chugged along, and slowly climbed back up the cliff in share-price to arrive back at a stock price that has not moved in 20 years (not accounting for the fact that 2021 dollars are worth less than 2000 dollars).
They have accomplished not too much in 20 years except slowly spinning in a big circle: https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/INTC?p=INTC&.tsrc=fin-srch
Contrasting above to Apple enters ludicrous territory. Intel is quite "small" with a current market cap of only $224 billion, vs. Apple being the first company to surpass a $1 trillion market cap, which currently sits @ $2.1 trillion.
Apple Inc. (AAPL) Stock Price, News, Quote & History - Yahoo Finance
Find the latest Apple Inc. (AAPL) stock quote, history, news and other vital information to help you with your stock trading and investing.
Whether people love or hate Wall St., the reality is that public companies are beholden to, and owned by, the shareholders. In this regard Intel is a spectacular failure and their management s---ks; whereas Apple has been a phenomenal success and essentially printed an avalanche of cash for shareholders (while also making cool products that are a pleasure to use).
Having said all of the above, currently typing this on a Mac Pro using Intel's XEON CPUs, which are unlikely to change for the foreseeable future. I just find the "Intel vs. Apple" focus a bit silly. As a public company, Intel got left in the dust ages ago by Apple. Within the server space, Intel is still the dinosaur that could. Within the mobile space, they're completely irrelevant. As a CPU maker for desktop and laptop computers, I guess we're about to find out.
TSM (TSMC) has done quite well laid across the same timeline, 20x bagger: https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/TSM?p=TSM&.tsrc=fin-srch -- within the past 2 years their performance is fantastic.
AMD laid across the same 20 year timeline has been an 8-9bagger. Not anywhere near AAPL territory, and their fortunes are tied to TSMC, but they too are doing really well in the past few years.
I don't disagree, Apples vs. Pears analogy is apt -- that was one of the points of my whole message -- they're not in the same business and Apple source a lot of components elsewhere, the RAM in my MP is Samsung, my non-Apple SSDs are also Samsung, RAID card is Sonnet, etc. My summary was how's it doing as a ticker symbol in my portfolio and what ROI has Apple given me vs. Intel (the answer is orders of magnitude higher). APPL stock has been a much better investment, and their market cap dwarfs Intel.
Last edited:
I’ll just call you out on erroneous facts. Apples market share is increasing, not being cannibalized by growth by other brands