Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Osborning the Mac, or not

mondaynote.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 253 posts

Re: Osborning the Mac, or not

#231

Post by scarface74 »

slantyyz wrote: post #224
scarface74 wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you compared the performance of the atom based Surface to the cheapest iPad?

That's an apples and oranges test, and the performance difference doesn't matter. They're for different target markets. I don't think anyone in their right mind considers a Surface as an alternative to an iPad. Just because they have similar form factors doesn't mean they're substitutes for one another. The things I run on my atom based handheld are only available on Windows.

So the target market is people who want a really slow more expensive tablet with a horrible interface for touch?

Microsoft’s own products run better on the low end iPad than the low end Surface. On top of that, the interface is better for touch.

And Microsoft sells less Surfaces than Apple sells Macs, let alone iPads. This isn’t really saying much about the Windows being backwards compatible for ever (what started this thread) was a great strategy.

https://investorplace.com/2018/10/surface-sales-propel-micro...

Re: Osborning the Mac, or not

#232

Post by geoelectric »

djrogers wrote: post #229
blt wrote: post #12

I've been pretty unenthusiastic about the idea of replacing my Macbook Pro after they removed the MagSafe connector and HDMI ports. However, if the ARM laptops run cool enough to actually use on your lap, it might be worth it. Knowing today's Apple, though, they'll make it super thin and it will still run hot.

Neither my 16” MBP or my iPad Pro are too hot for lap use. Yes - the 5+ year old laptops you are clinging to were saddled with some occasionally hot intel CPUs but they’ve come a long way.

My 16” MBP gets pretty warm when I game. Think that’s unavoidable in any laptop where the body is part of the heat sink.

Re: Osborning the Mac, or not

#233

Post by svaha1728 »

slantyyz wrote: post #99
scarface74 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, if the transition from 32 to 64 bit is any indication, they don't care nearly as much about backwards compatibility as they used to. When they did the hardware transitions, they had a compatibility layer (Rosetta) that was supported for 5 years after the transition. But with the 32 bit change, the announced that it would no longer be supported in 2017, and dropped support in 2019, just 2 years later Apple hasn’…

>> Were developers really caught off guard that they shouldn’t be writing 32 bit software in 2017? Probably not, but end users shouldn't have to suffer because they bought software from bad developers. One reason why IE still ships with Windows is because a lot of companies are still using old enterprise software that never got updated for the modern web.

IE is not a good example. As someone who had to support legacy C++ bloat for years, I thought Apple’s move was a good one.

Re: Osborning the Mac, or not

#234

Post by saagarjha »

Jasper_ wrote: post #145
saagarjha wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple didn’t really have a choice. The choice required a fairly decent amount of legacy support for the next decade or so; I doubt they really wanted to commit to that if they didn’t have to.

This to me says one of two things: 1. Either their engineering org is so bad they can't afford to spend some of their massive resources on backwards compatibility. 2. They just don't give a shit. Either way, not a great look.

What engineering organization would prefer to support an architecture for the next 10 years because they had to use that chip for two?

Re: Osborning the Mac, or not

#235

Post by arvinsim »

strbean wrote: post #6

It seems like the de jour solution to the Osborne Effect is to create the consumer expectation of significant price increases. People still buy last gen hardware nowadays well after the new hotness is out, because the new generation often costs 50%-100% more for a year or two. If Osborne had said "The next versions will be even better, and only cost $5000 more!" people would have kept buying the Osborne 1.

There will be a bigger backlash if they mislead customers on the price.

Re: Osborning the Mac, or not

#236

Post by pfranz »

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #48
renaudg wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the Mac and iDevices revenue streams are not as independent as you imply. Driving the Mac off a cliff would alienate developers and have serious repercussions on the iOS ecosystem as well. Why do you think Apple still builds Pro apps like Logic and FCP ? They are almost certainly losing money given their ridiculously low price point, but they help with brand image and keeping the Mac the go-to platform for cr…

I mentioned this above—I feel like Apple's pro apps are highly analogous to what happened to the Mac. That doesn't portend a bright future. Apple killed Shake, which was an industry standard at one point. They killed Aperture, which lots of photographers loved. They replaced Final Cut Pro 7 with a much more limited Final Cut X, and seeded lots of ground to Adobe in the process. There's also OS X Server, although ther…

> Apple killed Shake, which was an industry standard at one point.

Sure, and this might be skewed by hindsight because they did make new releases for a handful of years, but it was an acquahire to develop Aperture and other color tools for Final Cut Pro. Small shops use After Effects on Windows, medium shops used Shake on Windows, and large shops used Shake in Linux. Because of hardware costs you'll be very hard-pressed to get medium or large shops to use macOS.

I also don't see Apple investing/competing with the big transitions that happened in CG over the next 5 years; 64bit, 4k/8k, and stereo. Apple had special deals where they offered Shake's source code when it was discontinued and a few studios clung on and tried valiantly to accommodate [1]

[1] https://www.studiodaily.com/2008/07/delivering-8k-vfx-shots-...

Re: Osborning the Mac, or not

#237

Post by sjwright »

cpeterso wrote: post #193
sjwright wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My prediction of Apple’s moves here are far less dire. These are just predictions mind you, but the point is Apple could do this without ruining the platform for enthusiasts. 1. They’re going to have some kind of breakthrough with x86 emulation where the Apple ARM CPU has a translator, or an accelerator, or a co-processor, or something that will make x86 run at decent speeds. 2. Apple will move to a long term two-CPU…

> 2. Apple will move to a long term two-CPU strategy with ARM on economy and low power SKUs, and Intel chips for the “Pro” SKUs. That makes sense to me: a two-CPU strategy (ARM for laptops and x86 for desktops where power usage is less important) would lessen the Osborne Effect. Mac developers would have a strong motivation to support both laptops and desktops (and thus ARM and x86 macOS) so consumers would not have…

In my imaginary universe, it’s be ARM for MacBook Air and a “Mac nano” shortly followed by an economy spec iMac. If the performance is there, it could eventually extend to the entire iMac line, with a broadened iMac Pro line staying Intel.

It would actually be quite tidy if “Pro” Mac meant Intel, non-pro meant Apple ARM.

Re: Osborning the Mac, or not

#238

Post by sjwright »

snowwrestler wrote: post #212
sjwright wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My prediction of Apple’s moves here are far less dire. These are just predictions mind you, but the point is Apple could do this without ruining the platform for enthusiasts. 1. They’re going to have some kind of breakthrough with x86 emulation where the Apple ARM CPU has a translator, or an accelerator, or a co-processor, or something that will make x86 run at decent speeds. 2. Apple will move to a long term two-CPU…

What would keep Apple from shipping machines with both ARM and Intel CPUs in them? The ARM CPU would run the OS and decide when to ship jobs over to the Intel CPU. I can’t imagine that the home-grown ARM CPU would add much to the total price of the computer. Recall that at one point Apple shipped laptops with two GPUs; one for low power work that was more power-efficient, and a more powerful one that was turned on as…

They already ship ARM co-processors in Macs: the T2 chip.

An alternative possibility to my earlier musings is that the T2 chip gets expanded to take over more system functionality—perhaps to the point where the Intel chip looks more like an accelerator add-on card than the primary CPU.

Re: Osborning the Mac, or not

#239

Post by tonyedgecombe »

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #147
tonyedgecombe wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never understood why they killed that but kept Filemaker. I guess they really did think the update to Photos was good enough.

Filemaker is different, it's not an Apple product anymore. Claris was spun off into a separate company.

I think Claris are still owned by Apple though?

Re: Osborning the Mac, or not

#240

Post by kstenerud »

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #201
kstenerud wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What percentage of the mac user population are they? 5%? 10%? 80% of mac users are like my mother-in-law: The Mac is a machine that does their taxes, emails, word processing, small business stuff, browsing, movie watching, and sometimes video chat if they're not doing that on their phone. And if a company that depends on the creative industry is selling its software outside of Apple channels, I'm sure they'll have th…

I have no data but I bet it's far more than 10%. Your mother-in-law doesn't need a fancy iMac or $2,000 Macbook Pro.

I imagine that Apple has a pretty smart team that has thought of their market share prospects, using internal data that no one else has access to. The chances of an armchair analyst out-thinking them is pretty slim.
Post reply on HN