The point was did you have 128GB drives to go with Fat binaries and double digit megapixel cameras ?
I was there. The binary is a fraction of the total app size. I know people who did strip their binaries, but most didn't and never noticed. The system itself was normally the largest contributor, but these days Apple could easily ship a single binary OS.[/QUOTE]
Apple's inflationary pricing policy on SSD drive capacity cost puts it on the table. Especially at the lower end of the product spectrum.
The problem is, as I think Apple has found... barely anyone at the low end runs apps. They use Gmail and Netflix and Facebook and Twitter. The only third party app most people probably run is Chrome. So I don't think they're really worried about low end customers and fat binaries and ARM releases. And Marzipan is their attempt to shove low end users back into the walled garden of apps, which already comes with ARM binaries and MAS distribution.
I don't expect them to bring fat binaries back. Far more likley if ARM macs do come it will be "get you apps from the App store" solution. ( another reason to make a big deal about Microsoft Office getting there. If they can push Adobe and a few other large resistant players in for mainstream apps. That seems likely they 'cross platform' tactic. ). The folks with mainly high end apps just won't follow is all Apple prunes off is some super lightweight to point of crippling Mac laptop off the bottom. ( essentially same thing that is currently going on in Windows space in relation to ARM. )
I think they'll have fat binaries. But as you've pointed out, that won't apply to low end users anyway because they'll be getting their stuff from the MAS.
Apple chucking 32 from iOS and macOS space was a in part a space saving move. ( at least on iOS side).
iOS already stripped the 32 bit binaries from iOS App Store downloads. It wasn't to save disk space. It was to save RAM from having to load the runtime for 32 bit applications. That's why you got a warning on 32 bit app launch, not 32 bit app download.
I don't know if that really will affect an ARM macOS unless they ship a Rosetta like thing for Intel apps, and even then that can go away separately.
Apple is upset because they don't have a $400-500 Chromebook competitor product in the Mac's line up ?
That's exactly what it's about.
Microsoft almost went ARM for their Chromebook competitor, and the only reason they didn't is because Intel panicked and at the last second gave them a sweet deal on a.... Pentium Gold processor.
Apple feels like they could walk in, build a Mac on the iPad hardware platform, and sell it for $500-$600. It's not a bad idea, and they don't have to use Pentium Gold. Intel doesn't have a good CPU in that space. And losing profit margin to Intel is a lot more critical. And a Retina display ARM Mac with trackpad at keyboard could slot in right where the MacBook is, for $600-ish.
Heck, they could just take iPad Pro, throw macOS on it, add a trackpad to the keyboard case, and go head to head with Surface Pro while
beating Microsoft on price.
Mean old Intel makes Apple price their SSDs about twice as high as every else. *cough*. Intel is screwing up Apple system price points ... ROTFLMAO.
I don't know of any way Intel can provide hardware at that price point. Like I said, Microsoft went that way and all they ended up with was a sh*t sandwich and a sweetheart deal from Intel on one of the worst CPUs on the market.
Apple's margin strategy isn't really relevant here. Even the PC vendors haven't figured out how to build good hardware at that price point without going ARM.
The notion that we are going to get more affordable Macs if Apple goes to ARM SoC is mostly delusional. Similar the notion that Apple needs to wrestle away INtel's profits so they can just add a deeper layer to their own money Scrooge McDuck money pit. That too isn't a value add for customers and would like bite Apple over the longer term.
If Intel had any products that were competitive at that price point, this would be a different conversation. They don't.
I think in theory they COULD have a good solution for price conscious laptops. This isn't an x86 problem. But it looks a lot like when IBM couldn't get their act together and ship higher efficiency CPUs. And we know what happened when IBM fell behind on PowerPC.
Second, unless Apple simply just using "hand me down" iPad Pro SoC parts, are they really going to save anything over the "intel tax" if they have to fund a distinct R&D path for the Mac for a narrow subset of the Mac line up?
Can't evaluate price competitiveness on something from Intel that doesn't exist.
However, if Apple is highly serious about MBP 15 , iMac Pro , Mac Pro space then splitting the already small space that Mac product line is in doesn't much much sense at all. If they want to quixotically chase the thinnest possible laptop space they could do that just as easily with iOS over a 2-3 year period for far less investment risk. Fragmenting the Mac product line by chopping off 1-2 laptops off the bottom doesn't do much if both AMD and Intel aren't shooting themselves in the foot with large caliber weapons.
iOS is struggling with adoption. It's not at all a solution. That's why the iPad is getting it's ass kicked right now by Microsoft and Google. It's another core problem here. All Apple would end up doing is turning iOS into macOS, and then iOS would eat macOS, and the pro line would be stuck in the same place as if Apple just put macOS on ARM in the first place. The pro line might even be in a worse place if it gets eaten by iOS instead of macOS on ARM.
Apple is also in a place to dictate dual x86/ARM compiles. Even if x86 is in the minority in the Mac market, realistically no one can get away with not compiling for it. And with their push into Metal they've already decoupled performance acceleration from the host CPU platform.
