Apple Silicon M1 Disruption

We all know Apple is good at marketing.

And by dumping x86 and making the switch to ARM, Apple really has a lot riding here on its ARM processor. So we can understand the hint of desperation in pushing and publicising the M1 so much, especially targeting the Christmas shoppers. I have mixed feeling about this hype for the following reasons:

1. ARM processors have been ready for the desktop markets for a really long time. Hell, if the buggy and resource heavy Windows 95 / 98 could run "smoothly" on a single core 200 Mhz Pentium MMX, today's faster and multi-core ARMs have the potential to do much more with the right software. And that's exactly what has been holding ARM processors from the desktop market so far - decent system software and applications for it. It is in this area that Apple really deserves commendation for designing an ARM SoC well optimised for their system softwares (the macOS / ios platform).

2. With a well-designed SoC, and a decently optimised OS, it is not surprising that that the M1 is able to compete and match performance with the current Intel and AMD chips. The lower power performance and longer battery life is just an extra icing on the cake that ARM is already famous for. Apple is doing what it does best - utilising its strength of integrating the software and hardware to get the best possible performance out of a device.

3. Competition is good for us consumers. But for those of us like me, who prefer "freer and open" systems, I'd place my bet on Intel and AMD in the long run. They still have a huge advantage over other processors in not only raw performance, but portability and backward compatibility of software on their system. Hell, this is one of the reason why many of us, hesitant of Apple's famous obsessive control over their devices, were swayed to purchased an Intel mac - if Apple turned the screw on us, we could theoretically turn away from it by switching to another OS.

4. And as the Intel and AMD competition has shown us, both have bested each other in the past at some point, and continue to do so. As Apple's past switching of CPUs and architecture shows, even they recognize that marketing can only get you so far and people won't pay a premium if the hardware isn't atleast equal to the competition. In a year or two, both Intel and AMD will have even better processors. Will Apple be able to sustain competing with them in the long term will be interesting to watch for.

5. As I mentioned before, Intel and AMD's huge advantage over ARM processors in general, and here specifically with Apple processor, is that they are more "open and free" when compared to the ARM platform that are a jumble of closed and customised SoCs. We all know Apple's nature here - they are extremely obsessive about controlling the device totally, and least interested in letting their users customise it outside the bounds they set (hardware or software). A highly customised and closed ARM SoC gives them precisely that kind of control on the desktop that they have been desiring for a long time. The closed ios platform has proved to them that they can earn RECURRING revenues from such devices - they earn billions of dollars from the App Store. Apple's desktop processors now allow them to do the same with the mac Desktops.

And that's why as an Apple user who owns a mac and is typing this on his iPad, I don't celebrate the Apple processors, or their temporary "game changing" performance. I don't want to live in a gilded cage, deprived of my computing freedom.

And I know it doesn't matter to Apple - it's still a huge profit for Apple even if they lose 100's of thousands of users like me because they'd rather have millions of non-tech savvy users who see a smart-phone or a tablet just like their TV or microwave - day to day appliance whose working they don't understand but are glad to have. Apple can make more money from these consumers than from us.

It was a sad day when we developers had to pay Apple for the privilege to develop and distribute software on it. It was disconcerting as a user to pay an "Apple tax" when you are not even buying the software from them. It is depressing now that Apple processor has tightened this stranglehold even further now, with the push to convert a computer to a calculator like appliance that will run only Apple authorised softwares. I celebrate the innovations but have no reason to celebrate Apple's role and only hope it fails. Its success will result in further imitation of Apple's business practice and pushing of such closed ARM SoCs by others in this industry - the future of fragmented, incompatible, custom and closed ARM processors is not something I look forward to at all as a developer or a user.

Sorry I misinterpreted. Isn’t this a reflection of the primary markets for both companies, though? When Intel is trying to sell chips for HPC clusters and expensive workstations, impractical vector units can make sense. Clearly Apple is not bothered by that and has a more balanced micro architecture for more common use cases.

> Apple didn't have all these issues, because it is in their culture, to provide software that works, without much bloat and with great hardware

It's funny you write this when the linked article specifically calls out Apple's software for a few "warts" and even agrees with Moorhead's and Gruber's take that the software is not yet fully baked.

perf/W is what matters for laptops. I'm right now on an RTX 2070 Max-Q with 6/12 i7 Intel laptop, but I'm paying for it by it being heavy on my travels (especially the adapter for it taking up a big part of my suitcase).

I'll see in half year how Zen 3 compares to M1X as this is the first time I'm thinking of buying an Apple laptop for myself.

Who has the best CPU is irrelevant. What is the relevant is a single driving force that can deliver a coordinated response to Apple as a sinlge, inseparable package and not a shoebox of DIY parts. And the trouble is that the PC industry does not have such one.

Back in the 80s, it was IBM being the PC product company with a single product vision and being the trend setter (PC was hardware and software in one package designed to the make the most of each other), and the last failed attempt by IBM to lead the industry was the introduction of the microchannel architecture that no one wanted to licence due to high royalties. After that IBM gave up and became just another PC vendor. This is why we have the PC world as it has been for the last 30+ years (democracy) vs Apple (benevolent dictatorship).

Different players (Intel/AMD, Microsoft etc) have different stakes in the same game (or hold multiple pieces of the same puzzle – depending how one pleases to see it), and they may (or may not) have a busines incentive to play nicely with each other. One potential solution could be completely opening up the x86 architecture and giving everyone equal rights to the IP pool so the situation such as that one of the microchannel arch royalties does not come up again (i.e. Apple business units does not have to licence technology components from ot to each other). But then, again, a single driving force would still be required to deliver a single product. Perhaps, a new contender could then emerge.

And an interesting thought excercise is that one of the PC market deciding that it does not need a disruption, and it will remain content with the status quo and just soldier on. Which is not entirely implausible, either.