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

What’s Left in the Apple Silicon Transition

512pixels.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 263 posts

Re: What’s Left in the Apple Silicon Transition

#171

Post by vetinari »

JKCalhoun wrote: post #132
coldtea wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't matter. Those things can go in the span of a few years. Remember when Blackberry was king? Pepperidge Farm remembers!

Nokia, Blackberrys ... it turned out that having a world class OS was more important than perhaps anyone at the time knew. My surprise is that Android is the "other one" and not Windows Phone.

> My surprise is that Android is the "other one" and not Windows Phone.

I'm not. Microsoft, with WP, copied the weak things from iOS (like being locked down, but also with very poor walled garden; single platform, Snapdragon reference design only), but not the strong ones. Android did it the other way, so I'm not surprised at all.

Re: What’s Left in the Apple Silicon Transition

#172

Post by donbrae »

jsjohnst wrote: post #129
donbrae wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. Releasing FCP X as an MVP (a concept no-one outside of software dev understands), without the features in FCP 9 that professionals expect, was a bad idea. I know a couple of filmmakers that switched to PC, partly due to the cost of Macs but also because of FCP X.

> without the features in FCP 9 that professionals expect There was no version 9, nor version 8. ;)

Of course, sorry, my mistake!

Re: What’s Left in the Apple Silicon Transition

#173

Post by alxlaz »

zozbot234 wrote: post #163
lelanthran wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are you surprised, you said it yourself: > it turned out that having a world class OS was more important than perhaps anyone at the time knew. Microsoft never fully committed to a phone OS because workable tablets might have demolished the desktop market.

Microsoft actually had workable tablets by the mid-2000s. With Windows XP Tablet Edition. Then they wasted time and effort trying to push a crappy tablet UX (Windows 8) to desktop users.

Windows XP Tabled Edition was to tablets as Windows 8 was to desktops and laptops: a solid (for its age) OS, but with an interface that was not adequate for that form factor. Using it on a tablet was just as annoying as using Windows 8 on a laptop. I hated it, my colleagues hated it -- I don't know anyone who didn't hate it.

Re: What’s Left in the Apple Silicon Transition

#174

Post by physPop »

jb1991 wrote: post #66
UltraViolence wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This will hold as long as Apple makes tons of money from its iPhone business. The minute however that this starts to sag they'll start cost-cutting and they'll start with unprofitable vanity products like Mac's.

Is the Mac actually unprofitable? I don’t think that’s true.

Amazing mac haters still exist in 2023. The products have proven themselves in the market and with developers. Ignoring that is head-in-the-sand behavior.

edit: 2023!

Re: What’s Left in the Apple Silicon Transition

#175

Post by physPop »

philistine wrote: post #151
sylens wrote: post #76

Apple’s high end desktop strategy has been confusing to me for several years now. They made a big deal out of the iMac Pro, even though that seemed like an obvious quick fix for power users since the new Mac Pro wasn’t ready at the time. However, I never understood why Pros would want to pay more for an an all-in-one they couldn’t self service or upgrade when they probably already had monitors they preferred using. T…

In 2006, computing was less generous. A music producer probably needed a Mac Pro for their workflow to be efficient. Since then, Intel has massively reduced the delta between laptop and desktop chips. Coupled with the increase in computing ability of our processors while most tasks do not increase their needs (that music producer does not need more computing than in 2006) and desktops slowly faded to nothing but the…

That's an interesting point. Do you know a good reference comparing laptop vs desktop cpu performance? I'm always confused by comparisons that inevitablty are affected by other laptop specific components (differences in mgpu / motherboard chipsets etc).

Re: What’s Left in the Apple Silicon Transition

#176

Post by alberth »

klelatti wrote: post #49

Just looking at the economics of the Mac Pro based on sales of the machine itself doesn't quite capture the full picture. An Apple Silicon Mac Pro could have many roles: - A flagship product that demonstrates just how powerful Apple Silicon can be. This in turn could enhance the Apple / Mac brand for a certain group of users. - An aspirational product for users who think that they might need more power in the future.…

Does the Mac Studio not address all those points?

Re: What’s Left in the Apple Silicon Transition

#177

Post by ajross »

klelatti wrote: post #49

Just looking at the economics of the Mac Pro based on sales of the machine itself doesn't quite capture the full picture. An Apple Silicon Mac Pro could have many roles: - A flagship product that demonstrates just how powerful Apple Silicon can be. This in turn could enhance the Apple / Mac brand for a certain group of users. - An aspirational product for users who think that they might need more power in the future.…

> A flagship product that demonstrates just how powerful Apple Silicon can be.

The danger there is what if it isn't? Apple's riding high right now but what if AMD or Qualcomm or whoever takes the next crown? This is one of the things that almost killed the company back in the G4 days. Jobs would be up there on stage essentially lying to our faces about the "Personal Supercomputer" when any of us could look at the literally-twice-as-fast Coppermine boxes on our desks to see the truth.

Computers and technology are ephemeral and quirky. Apple's brand isn't and has never been[1] about selling "chips" or "computers". They sell "modes of interaction".

[1] The last pure-tech play from Apple was the Apple II+.

Re: What’s Left in the Apple Silicon Transition

#178

Post by klelatti »

ajross wrote: post #177
klelatti wrote: post #49

Just looking at the economics of the Mac Pro based on sales of the machine itself doesn't quite capture the full picture. An Apple Silicon Mac Pro could have many roles: - A flagship product that demonstrates just how powerful Apple Silicon can be. This in turn could enhance the Apple / Mac brand for a certain group of users. - An aspirational product for users who think that they might need more power in the future.…

> A flagship product that demonstrates just how powerful Apple Silicon can be. The danger there is what if it isn't? Apple's riding high right now but what if AMD or Qualcomm or whoever takes the next crown? This is one of the things that almost killed the company back in the G4 days. Jobs would be up there on stage essentially lying to our faces about the "Personal Supercomputer" when any of us could look at the lit…

Hmmm, performance has been a key part of Apple’s branding for decades from Power PC (don’t disagree with your point on G4 though) through Intel in the MacBook Pro and Mac Pro and now on iPhones and M series Macs.

Edit - this is a comment about branding ie how Apple presents itself not actual performance.

Re: What’s Left in the Apple Silicon Transition

#179

Post by jb1991 »

physPop wrote: post #174
jb1991 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is the Mac actually unprofitable? I don’t think that’s true.

Amazing mac haters still exist in 2023. The products have proven themselves in the market and with developers. Ignoring that is head-in-the-sand behavior. edit: 2023!

What I find most surprising is that people think the computer industry is somehow immune from the most basic of human qualities: choice. It's perfectly fine if some people don't choose or don't like Apple products. Just as it is perfectly fine for some not to want to use Linux or buy Windows. It's just choice. How silly that for some it is a strange, almost religious, war.

Re: What’s Left in the Apple Silicon Transition

#180

Post by SirGiggles »

klelatti wrote: post #178
ajross wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A flagship product that demonstrates just how powerful Apple Silicon can be. The danger there is what if it isn't? Apple's riding high right now but what if AMD or Qualcomm or whoever takes the next crown? This is one of the things that almost killed the company back in the G4 days. Jobs would be up there on stage essentially lying to our faces about the "Personal Supercomputer" when any of us could look at the lit…

Hmmm, performance has been a key part of Apple’s branding for decades from Power PC (don’t disagree with your point on G4 though) through Intel in the MacBook Pro and Mac Pro and now on iPhones and M series Macs. Edit - this is a comment about branding ie how Apple presents itself not actual performance.

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say efficiency instead? It's to my understanding that the latest offerings from both AMD and Intel are competitive in regards to synthetic benchmarks at the cost of higher power consumption.
Post reply on HN