Right, that’s actually why I said perhaps FAR less than a million. 0.1M is, indeed FAR less than a million.
I didn’t say it was the norm. There exists, in reality, a year where analysts estimated Apple sold 28 million Macs. As it’s been done once, it could recur.. So, as 28 is so close to 30, indicating that Apple may sell somewhere between 20-30 million Macs in a given year is accurate… unless the analysts come back and estimate that they actually sold 31 or 19 million.
Yet another reason why Intel can claim to be on the cusp of producing the coldest processor this side of sliced ice, if they go to the vendors saying, “Hey, um… yeah it’s not as cool as we thought and consumes more power than we expected… it’s a dumpster fire, really. So, how many can we put you down for?” they’re all still going to place those orders.
Ah, but it’s what you do in the intervening time that matters. Do you:
Absolutely no question, no doubt and businesses have GOT to LOVE that fact. And, the x86 ecosystem, as a result, will still be less efficient than the stuff Apple’s producing. Garbage in, garbage out.
We do have a strong indicator from, of all sources, Apple, though. Anyone that looks at, say, the base configurations of the Macs shipping with slower drives and a HomePod with an older version of WiFi coming out of Apple (those products that are likely expected to sell in the millions) can’t think that the SAME Apple is going to create a one-off, esoteric, incompatible with the code Apple’s been telling developers to write for the last few years configuration for a system that will likely sell less than 1 million units across it’s entire lifetime.
www.digitaltrends.com
Business/government do take a long time to change technologies, demonstrated by the Cobol crisis a few years ago.
But in terms of unit sales it is a different story:
“By 2026 — not 2050, but 2026, four years from now — half of the cloud processors will be ARM-based, and 30% of PCs will be ARM-based."
Maybe optimistic, but could happen particularly if the Microsofts' license problems get resolved and ARM is let out of its cage.
In just three years, 30% of PCs may be built on ARM architecture
A new report suggests that ARM may appear in many more computers in the near future.
www.digitaltrends.com
Pro workstation is one battle Apple already lost. They went all in on Apple Silicon without considering all the ramifications. Or maybe they did and decided pro workstations are one segment of the Mac market they can afford to lose. As iPhone sales slows, a lot of the ill-advised decisions Cook made now started to come back to bite him.
Yes, but that’s because they are, in reality, not x86 processors. For anyone that needs an x86 workstation, there’s literally nothing Apple can provide them because they’re not even an x86 licensee.
If you analyze Apple's revenue stream, you will soon come to the realization that without another blockbuster product soon, it will become a phone/service company. Perhaps it already is.
Apple's overdependence on iPhone as a revenue stream and iPhone's overdependence on China as a manufacturing hub. This is a dangerous combination that can spell Apple's downfall.
Pro workstations were lost prior to Apple Silicon. Apple’s actions up until now were a preparation for Apple Silicon… the reason why they cut off 32 bit support while they were still on Intel processors (which were 32-bit capable) is an example of this. iPhone sales sliding was expected, which is why they’ve been providing services that have been bringing in high profit money (900 million subscribers across all their different offerings, Apple One, iCloud, etc.).
Yes, Steve jobs got Apple deeply entangled in China. Thanks Steve?
Yes, it is. Though I’d modify it slightly to say phone/tablet/service company, because they sell almost twice as many iPads as Macs in any year.
) There are folks that, for a number of years, were IN the slice as Apple defined it at the time. And, when Apple redefined it (which they do regularly), some folks found themselves no longer in the slice Apple’s putting their attention on.
It's not really that easy to find the next big thing and be at the right place at the right time. Apple really hit a home run with the original iPhone. Everything else after was built on the moment the advent of that particular device created.The question some should be asking is not, “Is Apple going to be relevant?” It should be more like “In five years, will I be relevant to Apple?” It depends on whether or not that individual looks at the landscape of the things Apple has created and can say to themselves, “I like these products an their price is worth it for the value I would receive from them.” If so, then the will be.
At any one time, the products and services Apple produces are not made for the entire computing market, they focus on a slice of it that can be profitable to serve. For the folks in that slice, it feels to them like these products are made for EVERYONE if only everyone would see it (or if Apple made their products cheaper… which is against the point
As long as Apple can continue to find those profitable millions every year (they’re pretty good at it by now) and continues to offer a mix of goods and services an ever changing slice of folks find valuable, they’ll be ok.
Yes, guess why? Because that legacy code would have caused problems during the transition to Apple Silicon that Apple had on their internal roadmaps for years. Case in point, Rosetta. That the current one works as well as it does seems amazing until you think that Apple set it up to make its job as easy as possible. Rosetta today doesn’t have to translate ALLLL of the cruft that’s been created in x86 over the years. It’s JUST focusing on the 64 bit stuff and, of that, ONLY the stuff that’s been created by Apple’s compiler (Apple’s deprecated a lot of functions in their API’s over the years, again, that wouldn’t align with the Apple Silicon transition).
Mr. Jobs angrily held up his iPhone, angling it so everyone could see the dozens of tiny scratches marring its plastic screen, according to someone who attended the meeting. He then pulled his keys from his jeans.
You should really take the time to read that article.
Apple has been doing business with China for years. This is, effectively, more business with China. Which… one can’t have “more” business with China unless they’re doing business with China to start with. If Steve Jobs hadn’t set that direction for years PRIOR to 2016, then Tim Cook wouldn’t be signing a deal in 2016. (OR Gil or Scully, I should look into who moved manufacturing to China first)
I don’t doubt that Apple’s going to go through changes. Someone used to the “Apple II” Apple wouldn’t get how Apple makes more money on services than they make on the Apple II, which isn’t even sold anymore. Actually that’s a good parallel. Apple, if run like most of the rest of the industry, would have JUST removed the final bits of AppleIIGS legacy code from the latest OS in 2021. You could still use a legacy IIGS installer, but it would route you to the appropriate 32-bit installer.
And the iPod would be entering the terabytes of storage by now.
A lot of American companies were doing business with China at that time. A lot of Japanese and Korean companies too. But to get to the level that Apple is? That's of Cook's own volition. https://on.ft.com/3Y7TKaO
