Actually if you are a Apple Silicon iMac user, the last thing you want is iOS apps IMHO. Rosetta 2 is lot more important.
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.
Report: Apple Silicon iMac With Custom GPU to Launch in Second Half of 2021
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Five days later and… the sound of crickets.I could explain why, but when you go on to write:
I suspect that you aren’t really opening to learning the reasons.
It’s so much easier just to dismiss behavior we don’t understand as delusional than to do the hard mental work of actually broadening our perspectives, eh?
Edit: If you are if fact genuinely curious, let me know and I’ll happily explain my own reasons. You’ll still be free to conclude that I’m delusional, of course, but at least then you’ll be able to do so on the basis of information rather than ignorance.
Perhaps I was right after all. Zdigital2015 took the trouble to post that he has no idea why people keep doing what we do, but when one of us offers to explain why, it seems he’s not interested. Sigh.
I think you live too much in the narrow world (and tbh so do I) of macrumors where people do a lot of d---k measuring talking about 'performance'. I kinda think the vast majority of users of Macs are the ones you see at Starbucks: People who just want a solid, cool looking laptop on which they can do their budgeting, homework, web surfing, video watching, snap chatting etc. They ALREADY have plenty of speed for what they use their computer for and couldn't give a rats ass about getting more speed.
In fact, I'm sure most of them, if you asked, wouldn't know how many cores their computer has and would think it's stupid anyone would even waste their time worrying about things like that. The computer is their tool, they use it when they need it, it completely does the job to the point where they don't even notice it. And they certainly never think "dang I wish this was a little faster".
What they do care about is having a computer with little niceties like a usb A style port, since in colleges and all around the work world, USB A/B style flash drives are still one of the more common ways people share files. And from what I can tell, that's not going to change anytime soon. So while people like us are geeking out about a 15% difference in Geekbench scores, all they're thinking is "shut up and just give me a real USB connection".
As a side note, my daughter is 19 and I know a lot of her college age friends, and 99 percent of what they do on their phone is social media, or look up stuff in youtube. They also don't give a rats ass about almost any of the millions of apps that are available on the iOS platform. To them that's just a lot of crappy, boring junk (and frankly, I think most people agree with that assessment). So if you told them they could have a Mac that could run all sorts of iOS programs I think most of them would be like "whatever boomer".
Last edited:
While that might be true for your daughter (and mine), intel or Apple Silicon doesn’t matter either way for them other than battery life (but that one actually matters a lot).I think you live too much in the narrow world (and tbh so do I) of macrumors where people do a lot of d---k measuring talking about 'performance'. I kinda think the vast majority of users of Macs are the ones you see at Starbucks: People who just want a solid, cool looking laptop on which they can do their budgeting, homework, web surfing, video watching, snap chatting etc. They ALREADY have plenty of speed for what they use their computer for and couldn't give a rats ass about getting more speed.
In fact, I'm sure most of them, if you asked, wouldn't know how many cores their computer has and would think it's stupid anyone would even waste their time worrying about things like that. The computer is their tool, they use it when they need it, it completely does the job to the point where they don't even notice it. And they certainly never think "dang I wish this was a little faster".
What they do care about is having a computer with little niceties like a usb A style port, since in colleges and all around the work world, USB A/B style flash drives are still one of the more common ways people share files. And from what I can tell, that's not going to change anytime soon. So while people like us are geeking out about a 15% difference in Geekbench scores, all they're thinking is "shut up and just give me a real USB connection".
As a side note, my daughter is 19 and I know a lot of her college age friends, and 99 percent of what they do on their phone is social media, or their homework. They also don't give a rats ass about almost any of the millions of apps that are available on the iOS platform. To them that's just a lot of crappy, boring junk (and frankly, I think most people agree with that assessment). So if you told them they could have a Mac that could run all sorts of iOS programs I think most of them would be like "whatever boomer".
However, they aren’t the main reason for changing the SoC architecture. The reason is to make better Macs to entice some of the other 90+% of computer buyers. And if Apple manages to bring as much as 5% of those over, that is a huge increase in Mac user base. The way to do that is to offer better computers and/or more attractive price points than they do now. If they fail in this, their user base will instead drop.
We are all speculating when it comes to Apples plans, but I think we can be quite confident that their new offerings will offer tangible benefits over what they have now, otherwise they will simply loose customers on account of the PC functionality lost. The benefits must drive purchases that more than compensate for those lost sales, and the sales lost by people holding off buying Macs due to uncertainty about the future. (I’m one of those, btw.) They need to adress and attract the people who could very well run Windows for their tasks and make them choose to buy a Mac instead. And when that specific segment is the target, performance actually matters quite a bit.
Microsoft found out that supporting 3 APIs indefinitely (16-, 32, and 64-bit) isn't fun either. Especially when there are enough variants that the later oneness are not really compatible.
Sure, and this is the kind of people that couldn't care less about Windows compatibility, but would be happy to have a lighter Mac with better battery life, + some features like faceID, which are accelerated by Apple Silicon (the neural engine).
They might also like being able to game on their Mac, even if they did not buy it FOR gaming. The Apple iGPU is likely to be significantly faster than Intel's at the same power usage (due to its TBDR architecture and 5nm process).
2 things:
1. The very fact that Apple has announced this transition at all should dispel any concern about what GPU performance is in the pipeline. If they couldn't match or beat top end AMD cards with their own solution, they wouldn't be doing this. Period. They aren't going to take a step back on graphics in order to bolster CPU. These things are all interrelated today.
2. No one is concerned with games on Macs. It's practically a non-entity today even after 15 years of Intel Macs.
And no one is fatuous enough to say “no one” in the face of undeniable evidence to the contrary.
Oh, wait…
I'm happy to say "no one" because I know what I'm talking about.
The entire PC gaming industry remains focused on Windows. It has had 15 years to change, with the same architecture existing on the Mac. It hasn't. Developers aren't interested. And users haven't complained enough to force any kind of change.
Those that really want to play PC games with regularity buy PCs to do that with. Like me. You're allowed to own more than 1 kind of computer if you have additional needs.
I have quit trying to guess what Apple is planning when they aren’t releasing some quantitative information about it. Lots of people giving lots of opinions, usually pretty well reasoned, and it turns out in the end that the experts and long time users were wrong. Right now their cell phones and phone OS is the safest and most powerful system for most people, if they can afford it, and with the new SE that honestly should be most people.
Their track record on lap and desktops isn’t anywhere near as stellar. Desktops currently can have problems with heat and were stuck in the past on hard drive technology, laptops had bad keyboards for multiple years and some models weren’t easily upgradable.
And I know people that have both a Mac (laptop or desktop) that also have an Intel/AMD because they want to play games that require more than an Apple can deliver. I quite frankly don’t care why they don’t run high end games, most of the current hardware (most, but not hard drives or GPU’s) are the exact same so it’s a fight between developers, GPU makers and graphic drivers. There have been games that I would buy if they didn’t run like crap on a Mac. They do run, just not as well, and games aren’t my primary purpose with my iMac and I don’t want to buy another $1200 or more computer so I don’t bother. And I tell anyone who is thinking of switching that if gaming is 50.000000001% of what you do don’t get a Mac. And I know that the problem isn’t (currently) hardware. It’s business politics. Now, with ARM processors I’m not sure what the Mac is going to run or how well. I have iPad versions of Adobe and other photo and graphic image software and they don’t run as well on my year old iPad Air as the same type of software by the same company does my 5 year old iMac. I have nothing else to judge what the near future is going to be but comparing iPads to Wintels.
Your statement is manifestly false, and would be so even if only one person in this thread had expressed any interest in games on Macs.
Now if you had said, “Not very many persons are concerned with AAA games on Macs,” you’d have been on perfectly safe ground. If you’d said, “Very few persons are concerned with games on Macs,” we could have argued about casual games vs AAA games and about gaming on Boot Camp and about Mac game ports and perhaps even offered evidence to back up our arguments.
But in a thread where no fewer than fourteen different persons so far have taken the trouble to discuss games on Macs (and that’s not counting those few who posted only to recommend looking to other platforms), to say “No one is concerned about games on Macs [emphasis added]” is not only idiotic, it as also needlessly offensive.
Don’t believe me? Go to a bar sometime (or if you’re too young, just hang outside one), walk up to a group of strangers having a lively discussion, and tell them, “No one cares about your [insert subject of concern here]!” Then come back here and let us know how that worked out for you.
Sure, many do. Quite possibly even most. But we’re also allowed to own just one kind of computer if that’s all we want and it gets the job done.
Last edited:
Thank you.
Personally for me it’s been a question of why do I need to own different computers to run different types of programs. It’s not a hardware issue, at least not right now before Apple Silicon. It’s business politics, kind of like when your cable or satellite provider gets into a fight with local stations or the NFL network or whatever, and both sides put out viral ads blaming the other side for the impass and trying to get people to tweet/email the other company because it’s all their fault. Macs could run NViedia GPU’s and graphic software. Nvidea could make Metal compliant GPU’s. But game companies don’t want to bother with an also-ran system so they don’t develop for Macs or it’s on a ‘we’ll get to it eventually’ basis. If I’m going to spend $800-1500 on an ok gaming platform I’d rather do it making a Mac a decent game machine and only have 1 computer to screw with.
Actually if you are a Apple Silicon iMac user, the last thing you want is iOS apps IMHO. Rosetta 2 is lot more important.
Why's that ?
Initially, sure Rosetta will be important to some. But the faster apps are recompiled for AS the better.
Reliance on Rosetta the last time around meant alot of software was crawling on Intel for years as they kept releasing PPC apps, hopefully the same mistake is not made by them this time around and developers buck up.
Alot of iOS apps I assume will be cross platform and running natively on AS from the get-go, only needing a menubar added to the iOS to make them play nice on desktop. Many straight up iOS apps should simply work out of the box without any mods whatsoever.
Theres a ton of synths and audio apps that I wish had a desktop version for years.
I consider iOS apps a security risk. Far more likely to find vulnerabilities than against any MacOS application. A business would not want staff installing IOS apps willy nilly then discover something communicating to a via a port not normally used when monitoring network activity.
For that reason I prefer iOS/iPadOS apps to stay on mobile platforms they were meant for.
Apple will never be able to dip into the PC market and grab PC users until they drop their prices to a managable level. ever since Apple products were built, it has always been the same argument from consumers, Apple products are too expensive for them to buy. Ever since my tech job back in the 90's i've heard time and time again 'i wish i could afford a mac' and i still hear it today. They buy a Windows based computer because it is much much cheaper and can do the same things, use social media, watch youtube, browse the web.
Apple could make the best computer ever to be seen but it will not grab windows based computer users unless the price is affordable.
I consider iOS apps a security risk. Far more likely to find vulnerabilities than against any MacOS application. A business would not want staff installing IOS apps willy nilly then discover something communicating to a via a port not normally used when monitoring network activity.
For that reason I prefer iOS/iPadOS apps to stay on mobile platforms they were meant for.
I would consider the security risk far greater on desktop applications. Apps from the App Store are vetted by a third party vs the great unknowns of downloading from whatever software manufacturer you care to name.
Any Business that concerned about security would, firstly have their workstations locked down enough that employees could not install apps that are not explicitly installed by IT staff.
Secondly they are going to have IT security personnel and tools capable of identifying and blocking weird outbound communications.
I rather deal with a known commercial application by a Apple developer that can be traced even if its directly downloaded from the vendors web site instead of the MacOS specific App Store, then someone telling me that a iOS app from some author is more trusted because the App Store checks everything. This is a issue to deal with when you have a Apple Silicon computer to test, not arguing when its not real yet.
Last edited:
I rather deal with a known commercial application by a Apple developer that can be traced even if its directly downloaded from the vendors web site, then someone telling me that a iOS app from some author is more trusted because the App Store checks everything. This is a issue to deal with when you have a Apple Silicon computer to test, not arguing when its not real yet.
If you are dealing with commercial applications only, downloading one from the App Store is double safety line. Your device though
I'm fully aware that people who care about something can't comprehend that most others don't, or that not enough others do for it to matter.
What you seem not to be aware of is basic arithmetic and the plain meaning of English phrases like "most others” and “no one.” Take away “most others” and you are not left with “no one.”
If you can’t or won’t take the trouble to understand how the English language works and why misusing it to completely discount people can get you into trouble, then I’m afraid I can’t help you.
The problem is those comparisons look at the get the computer cost. When you look at the big picture a Mac is cheaper. Heck, went you compare hardware on an even keel the Mac is either cheaper or on par with the PC.
Are Macs more expensive than comparable PCs?
Mac vs. PC cost analysis: How does it all add up?
Total cost of ownership: Mac versus PC in the enterprise
There are many more examples but I think everyone gets the point - it is not a PC Cost Less. Mac cost more situation. With Apple's new in-house chip and reasonable x86 virtualization expect a $400 price cut just for the CPU. Throw in whatever the GPU in the relevant machine was costing Apple and throw that out too.
I don't think we will see any significant price cuts at all. Apple still need to recoup Processor R&D and manufacturing costs which they currently do not have while using Intel.
I seriously doubt the first A14's are going to be comparable to a $400 intel processor anyhow, more likely comparable to a $150-$200 Intel or thereabouts, which Apple would have been already be getting significant discounts on.
But I'm prepared to be pleasantly surprised.
WOW an article from 2007.
Great joke.
Like the base Mac Pro which is easily outperformed by PC's at half the price or even lower.
What matters in the end is general performance.
Can a PC thta costs less than a Mac (even half as much) offer better performance in general? In some cases (like gaming) way better performance?
The simple answer is: Yes.
Last edited:
And one from 2011 and another from 2020. Your point?
I'm talking off the shelf here not something put together and generally has to be tweak to room 7734 and back.
And in terms of power per Watt the Arm chip kicks Intel's butt. Your point?
"based on operating system support, around eight years is probably a fair time scale after which you should probably replace your Mac." Is that PC going to last that long or will components have to be replaced?
"Apple products might look more expensive at a first sight than Windows PCs, but the balance clearly changes if we take all software and support costs into consideration."
"The cheapest laptop from Apple starts at $999, but if you sum up all the software costs, Windows PCs are 3 times more expensive than Macs. A Mac is around $454 more expensive than a PC, saving up to $543 per Mac, compared with a similarly configured PC." - 2017
"One of the biggest problems with issuing software updates to Windows machines is having to account for the fact that they have to run on systems with wildly different components. Microsoft has minimum system requirements to run the latest version of Windows, but beyond that hardware makers (or individuals) are free to build their own machines." This results in fewer or slower updates - Why I always recommend Macs over PCs — even though they're usually a lot more expensive -(2018)
"Any organization serious about managing and securing Windows will need to add additional software and tools to the cost of their cheap PC, as opposed to having those features built into the operating system with Mac. Finally, when you add on the cost of management tools and support, the total cost of ownership gap can potentially be huge for an organization. In fact, IBM found they saved between $273 - $543 per Mac they deployed compared to PCs." - 2020
This reminds me of a story about a van by brother got. He bought this cheap van (it was a great deal) but he had to have it retrofitted with AC (which cost a bucket load of money, but it was a great deal) Then on the way to where we lived his all electronic dashboard went out - van still ran so he kept pace with truckers and just blindly filled up the tank when he had the chance. According to the place he took it to the van's computer had died and would cost $500 (this was back in the early 2000 so adjust for inflation) to replace...but it was a great deal.
The moral is you get what you pay for. Sure you can get a PC that is upfront cheaper then a Mac but when you figure in getting rid of all the ad/bloat ware (which is why it was cheap to begin with as margins are insanely thin), paying for useful software that comes with a Mac, and general long term usability the PC is more expensive.
I hardly think that is going to amount to the $400 per CPU and whatever the GPU costs. Remember that Processor R&D and CPU manufacturing cost have been paid for via the iPhone and iPad up til now. And
Rumors of a $800 ARM Macbook Pro are already out and about. If it is real that is $400 of a brand new Macbook Pro when compared to the current $1299 for the Intel version.
Same here and given what we saw with the Mac (which was running a A12Z; if you pause the video you can even read the serial number) which they revealed they had used to demonstrate all of the Big Sur features. If you look very carefully you don't see any evidence that this is the developer MacMini connected to a monitor which in my mind means it is an iMac. Sadly we don't see the Apple Silicon the Maya demonstration is running on but if it is also a A12Z then the A14 is going to kick butt and take names.