131–140 of 1001 posts
This is such an obvious move, that I predicted it 2 years ago: https://medium.com/@Jernfrost/in-3-years-apple-will-switch-f... My prediction in 2016, was that Apple would switch to ARM based laptops in 2019, so it looks like I am off by just 1 year. A quick summary of my argument back then was that ARM was getting fast ENOUGH, but are considerably cheaper. Standardizing on one CPU architecture for all their products…
Based on this article, it doesn't sound like Bloomberg has enough information to distinguish between Apple being committed to a transition, or Apple developing chips to improve their negotiating position with Intel. It's also very unlikely to happen on such a fast timetable; given the IP situation, it's unlikely Apple could make an x86_64 chip, and any move away from x86_64 is going to require significant work by thi…
> It's also very unlikely to happen on such a fast timetable the article (thin as it is) claims a multi-step transition. Apple almost certainly has a version of Mac OS that can run on their iPad hardware - the transition path that makes the most sense to me is a 12" MacBook that runs essentially the same internal hardware as an iPad pro, and a MacOS that can run iOS apps. There would be a great consumer market for a…
https://www.macrumors.com/2015/11/16/tim-cook-no-converged-m...
>We feel strongly that customers are not really looking for a converged Mac and iPad, because what that would wind up doing, or what we’re worried would happen, is that neither experience would be as good as the customer wants. So we want to make the best tablet in the world and the best Mac in the world. And putting those two together would not achieve either. You’d begin to compromise in different ways.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe a trackpad with a screen behind it. Apple already has an A series chip running the touchbar. Why not an iPhone under the trackpad?
I believe it's a T series, though your point still stands. I think I'd personally far prefer a display under the trackpad (though I don't think it's necessary at all) to a TouchBar or a touchscreen laptop. But I think I'm very much in the minority.
I'd join you in that minority.
Tim Cook has repeatedly stated that the iPad is "the clearest expression of our vision of the future of personal computing" and Apple only sells around 4M Macs per quarter, while iOS devices dwarf this stat. If their plan is to continue moving users from desktop/laptop devices to their iOS ecosystem, and the software can be transformed to cross between both classes of devices, then it only makes sense to unify the pr…
It appears that Apple, at least when it comes to the iPad, is increasingly unwilling to deliver new software that isn't explicitly tied to a new piece of hardware (and thus a hardware sale). We got writing APIs in order to sell $99 Apple Pencils, but never an actual vision for what it would really mean to do professional work on the iPad. And at some point, it stops seeming like there's some master plan waiting to be unveiled just around the corner. The iPad has been around for 8 years and the fundamentals of using one have largely remained the same, the same as the original subpar experience we excused since it was obviously a 1.0 product. The iPad has basically gotten thinner, faster, and gotten a pencil (which don't get me wrong, is great). iPad sales reflect this: iOS DEVICES may be doing amazing, but iPad sales have plateaued or declined repeatedly. Apple seems eternally confused by this, as if they think the product is done. They begrudgingly offer a "new" iPad with older parts and slightly cheaper price as if people just don't get what they're missing.
But what's missing is a message, a message other than "this is obviously the next iteration of the computer, why aren't you buying them even though we hardly update the Mac either?". The message and vision would inspire Apple to lead by example in the software they produce for it.
Based on this article, it doesn't sound like Bloomberg has enough information to distinguish between Apple being committed to a transition, or Apple developing chips to improve their negotiating position with Intel. It's also very unlikely to happen on such a fast timetable; given the IP situation, it's unlikely Apple could make an x86_64 chip, and any move away from x86_64 is going to require significant work by thi…
> It's also very unlikely to happen on such a fast timetable the article (thin as it is) claims a multi-step transition. Apple almost certainly has a version of Mac OS that can run on their iPad hardware - the transition path that makes the most sense to me is a 12" MacBook that runs essentially the same internal hardware as an iPad pro, and a MacOS that can run iOS apps. There would be a great consumer market for a…
https://www.macrumors.com/2018/01/31/apple-still-plans-combi...
This is such an obvious move, that I predicted it 2 years ago: https://medium.com/@Jernfrost/in-3-years-apple-will-switch-f... My prediction in 2016, was that Apple would switch to ARM based laptops in 2019, so it looks like I am off by just 1 year. A quick summary of my argument back then was that ARM was getting fast ENOUGH, but are considerably cheaper. Standardizing on one CPU architecture for all their products…
What if it turns out not to be based on the ARM architecture?
Great, we can go back to the macrumors nonsense about how this PPC is "just as fast" as the x86 days. With their focus on iOS vs MacOS, this doesn't surprise me. MacOS will simply die once they port their tools to iOS. Terrible choice IMO.
Except PPC was Motorola and IBM, not Apple
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PowerPC
PowerPC (with the backronym Performance Optimization With Enhanced RISC – Performance Computing, sometimes abbreviated as PPC) is a reduced instruction set computing (RISC) instruction set architecture (ISA) created by the 1991 Apple–IBM–Motorola alliance, known as AIM. PowerPC, as an evolving instruction set, has since 2006 been named Power ISA, while the old name lives on as a trademark for some implementations of Power Architecture-based processors.
Based on this article, it doesn't sound like Bloomberg has enough information to distinguish between Apple being committed to a transition, or Apple developing chips to improve their negotiating position with Intel. It's also very unlikely to happen on such a fast timetable; given the IP situation, it's unlikely Apple could make an x86_64 chip, and any move away from x86_64 is going to require significant work by thi…
It will obviously be an ARM transition not x86: https://medium.com/@Jernfrost/in-3-years-apple-will-switch-f...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah. There are only three extant architectural license holders (Intel, AMD and VIA) and they're basically in a circular firing squad of patents. To make their own chips, they'd need to either license from an existing holder (which wouldn't let them tinker unless it was a partnership or they acquired the license) or they'd need to make something so incredibly great the other three would trip over themselves to use it…
If they wanted to go x86 they would just buy VIA? I think it will be aarch64
(Price tag would be in the ballpark of $15-20 billion, 3 months of income for Apple)