Hmm, definitely not my observation. I used to be able to run airvideo in the background on my iPad 3 while surfing the web or playing a game. Couldn't do that after iOS7.
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.
Tim Cook: Apple 'Spending an Enormous Amount' on 'Macs of the Future'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Hmm, definitely not my observation. I used to be able to run airvideo in the background on my iPad 3 while surfing the web or playing a game. Couldn't do that after iOS7.
At the time they thought it made business sense and had a price/performance advantage (back in 2005). Remember this was pre core 2 duo. Intel was still using Netburst.
If you notice the two new generation consoles (xbox one, ps4) are both using X86 this time around.
Isnt this what made apple fail in the 80's and 90's? Spending too much money on the mac?
I just watched the movie jobs, not sure if it is accurate or not
I just watched the movie jobs, not sure if it is accurate or not
I honestly think that could be a smoke screen. Apple tends to do that to throw people's scent off a trail before they introduce something that does compete in that market, but isn't precisely what everyone else was doing. For example, Apple publicly made fun of the netbook, saying they wouldn't make a junk computer, but instead released the first MacBook Air.
Notice those quotes state things like "we wouldn't make one unless it made sense". I suspect it will soon make sense.
Steve Jobs said a lot of stuff that wasn't set in stone. IE he said touchscreens don't want to be vertical, then Apple goes and releases an iPad keyboard dock.
And I don't get the feeling Cook doesn't believe in merging iOS and OSX as much as I do he's making excuses not to do it. If Apple had to create a hybrid, they'd be in a poor position. Biggest thing is they'd have to destroy iOS, the only software ecosystem they have 100% control of.
So, what are these "some things"
Apple knows how to keep things secret...
i don't care what anyone says, why would you wan a 12-inch Mac or tablet ? including laptops..
Save the $$$ and bring Retina to the MBA with the same battery life...
This may sound impossible... but so was increasing the battery life to "all day" on the new MBA.
More-Retina would benefit allot more than to everyone then a 12-inch tablet that may be limited to the enterprise market/even if open to consumers buying.
And even them it won't sell well because of the size, not very potable..
Apple shouldn't be going backwards, only forwards.... And if they do, they better watch themselves, as a product being "un-popular" with everyone would be like the Surface RT not selling well..
Apple doesn't wanna become like Microsoft. do they ?
Apple knows how to keep things secret...
i don't care what anyone says, why would you wan a 12-inch Mac or tablet ? including laptops..
Save the $$$ and bring Retina to the MBA with the same battery life...
This may sound impossible... but so was increasing the battery life to "all day" on the new MBA.
More-Retina would benefit allot more than to everyone then a 12-inch tablet that may be limited to the enterprise market/even if open to consumers buying.
And even them it won't sell well because of the size, not very potable..
Apple shouldn't be going backwards, only forwards.... And if they do, they better watch themselves, as a product being "un-popular" with everyone would be like the Surface RT not selling well..
Apple doesn't wanna become like Microsoft. do they ?
OS X in the cloud with a subscription based allowing all non Mac owners to use it and get into the eco system.
Also available to owner of Mac hardware free of charge.
A sort of home cloud server to get instant access and upload to all of your data. Then when you leave the home, the server continues uploading your data allowing to check it on any internet connected machine.
Also available to owner of Mac hardware free of charge.
A sort of home cloud server to get instant access and upload to all of your data. Then when you leave the home, the server continues uploading your data allowing to check it on any internet connected machine.
Retina MBA?
Is it silly that I'd like a Retina MBA - even though that's what the MBP is?
But really all I want is my CD Rom back and a 1tb SSD based system for a reasonable price.
----------
It already exists, it's called Google Chrome and only costs $300. Mac version of this? $2k
Is it silly that I'd like a Retina MBA - even though that's what the MBP is?
But really all I want is my CD Rom back and a 1tb SSD based system for a reasonable price.----------
It already exists, it's called Google Chrome and only costs $300. Mac version of this? $2k
Is it silly that I'd like a Retina MBA - even though that's what the MBP is?
correct, but a MBA with Retina would fit in between those users that want the same ulta-light laptop of a MBA plus the benefits on a Retina display...
Thus, closing the gap..
The only reason you would go for a mac book pro would be for power, and ports..
That's it..
So, with a introduction of a MBA with Retina, I would think more people would buy them, then they are now, even power users would start buying them for photos, graphic presentations (since the only choice would BE the MBP with Retina)
For the others who just want extendability and keeping Retina, then the MBP with Retina..
Less choice for the consumer to think about..... they only have to worry about weather they need ports or not, if MBA had a retina display.
Mid sized, mid range headless Mac. With an easy to open case and room for optional user added features.
Why do you say that? An ARM-based Mac would come with the same applications as the Intel-based Macs, and third-party applications will not be far behind.
Porting iOS applications to OS X applications on ARM should be fairly straight forward since the only real difference between iOS and OS X is the UI. Rather than touch a screen you use the touchpad, trackpad, keyboard or mouse for interaction.
Porting OS X x86_64 applications to OS X ARM applications will not be like the PPC to x86 because:
- Apple will not be transitioning their only OS from one architecture to another, but will instead be adding an existing architecture to their Mac line.
- developers do not need to rush, or even make, an ARM version of their OS X application.
- the ARM architecture has been in use for over 6 years and Apple has had plenty of time to get OS X to run on ARM. They just had to bide their time until they had a 64-bit processor.
In my observation, Apple tends to be very deliberate in their product strategy. They don't usually do something just to do it or just to be able to check a box on the list of features. Usually, they do something only when they have clearly thought out what problem they want to solve. Whether or not you or others agree with their position is a different topic.
I personally haven't yet seen any important problems that are solved in a compelling way by a hybrid or a touchscreen display on a laptop. None. If my thinking is aligned with their thinking, then Apple only creates a hybrid if they bow to pressure of popular trends as opposed to building a solution to a specific problem.
Incidentally, I don't buy the idea that a hybrid is problematic for Apple due to the implications for iOS. There is nothing stopping Apple from creating a hybrid device that runs on OS X and at the same time, keeping the iPad line on iOS. Well, nothing stopping Apple other than the hybrid would suck for all the same reasons as the other hybrid solutions suck.
No, having 200+ different product lines with confusing targets is what made them fail.
For me the only real display of the limited RAM is the reloading of tabs in Safari, it's a really poor show, and makes me less likely to pick the device up for some serious browsing. Other than that though iOS7 is quite responsive on the iPad Air. I have turned off Parallex and that seems to make the thing even "snappier."
The Xeon 1620 is already priced like an i7, and, it has ECC and twice as many PCIe 3 lanes-- that is a big deal for supporting multiple GPUs and other I/O. The cost is higher power. The non-ECC consumer Radeons are definitely cheaper, though, at least retail.
Oh you mean that machine that spies on you (it's Google after all) and is just a helpless slab of plastic once wifi's off? At least the Mac helps you get some work done.
I don't think Apple is that consistent. They used to be deliberate but recently they've been doing stuff like screwing up their release cycles and commoditizing their own hardware (IE iPhone 5C). The release of the 128GB iPad and marketing it as a work device was a direct reaction to the Surface Pro.
What are these reasons?
Apple definitely should develop a product targeted right at that unpowered Nordic summer cottage market opportunity!
OSx is far far far far from perfect.
No OS is perfect. All have bugs and issues.
How well you enjoy using them however is completely subjective.
I'm not sure just how far the x86 game has come since the Core2Duo era.
http://techreport.com/news/24886/haswell-compared-to-everything
http://www.tomshardware.com/answers/id-1858266/apple-desktop-cpu.html
just some benchmarks.
So if you're saying the Core2Duo and the A7 are putting up the same sort of benchmark numbers, you're still putting the top of the line intel CPU at nearly 10x the computing performance.
as mentioned, once you start building into ARM cpu's all the advanced performances and features that the current x86's have, you will likely have a CPU with the same thermals and power usage that the Intel chips have. which, come Haswell, can be super low for some great power. the ULV's put in Macbook Air's for example are nearly as low power as the high end ARM cpu's, but still outperform whats in the ARM camp.
The CPU' architectures were designed completely different for entirely different usage scenarios.
The only reason Apple would have to move from x86 (which offered them compatibility with virtually all existing PC systems), would be to lock down their environments and system so that only Apple controls exactly everything on their computers. It would bring back the old incompatibilities that existed when Apple was using PPC's. it would segregrate the market as those who buy Mac's now for bootcamp cause they require windows will no longer be able to buy Apple computers.
Last edited:
Actually, there is very little effort porting x86 code to ARM code. The biggest difference between PowerPC and x86 was byte ordering, and that difference is gone. Very, very few people use assembler code. So most code will just be re-compiled for ARM, and that's it. Especially now that most people have moved to 64 bit, which means they dropped all their ancient assembler code, and a machine using OS X ARM would of course use a 64 bit version of the chip.