Personal computing discussed
Moderators: renee, Flying Fox, morphine
derFunkenstein wrote:What everybody forgets is that Apple needs to catch Intel in single-threaded CPU performance before it can surpass it. *Can* Apple get better performance than Intel so that the Mac lineup could adopt ARM? Maybe, but I'm still skeptical, no matter what Fool says. Will it? I'll believe it the day it ships and not a moment before.
derfunkenstein wrote:*Can* Apple get better performance than Intel so that the Mac lineup could adopt ARM?
chuckula wrote:What people seem to forget is that Apple has no problems dumping Intel while NOT beating Intel's products in performance (outside of some contrived bakeoff benchmarks like in the bad-old-days before they went to x86).
Derfunkenstein wrote:I don't think they'd take on the extra development cost unless they were going to do it for the entire line. They can't replace the entire Mac line without at least taking a stab at the iMac Pro and Mac Pro. I guess the only way they move on without those "pro" machines is if you believe they've completely given up on recapturing the media creation market and they're just going balls-out making expensive, fancy-looking, consumer-oriented media consumption boxes.
Derfunkenstein wrote:The biggest driving force for consumer CPU performance today is web applications and Javascript. I don't think they're at that point yet with their SoCs but we'll see what the A12 does.
Glorious wrote:there'd be a non-trivial portion of basically crazy people who would buy the darn thing just -BECAUSE- it was ARM.
windwalker wrote:I see no reason to buy a real Mac when I can hackintosh a cheap PC.
The ARM Mac can be both price and performance competitive with Intel PCs. If wanting that makes me crazy I don't want any of your sanity.
Glorious wrote:windwalker wrote:I see no reason to buy a real Mac when I can hackintosh a cheap PC.
The ARM Mac can be both price and performance competitive with Intel PCs. If wanting that makes me crazy I don't want any of your sanity.
OK, let me explain it to you then.
You are saying the only difference between a "real" Mac with x86 and a "real" Mac with Apple ARM is that you won't be able to hackintosh for cheaper once Apple goes Apple ARM.
So, yes, that's crazy. You can buy a real Mac with x86 right now. Saying that you want Apple to force the issue and MAKE you go legitimate, I mean, uh, dude?
That is entirely about willpower and personal ethics, not instruction sets.
Chuckula wrote:It's WindWalker. He looks at the fact that x86 processors are actually useful for tasks that don't include viewing Apple-Approved content and picking from curated Apple-Approved ideas as the greatest thing that's wrong with the world today.
windwalker wrote:Glorious wrote:there'd be a non-trivial portion of basically crazy people who would buy the darn thing just -BECAUSE- it was ARM.
That's me. The only Mac I'm interested in is an ARM one.
I see no reason to buy a real Mac when I can hackintosh a cheap PC.
The ARM Mac can be both price and performance competitive with Intel PCs. If wanting that makes me crazy I don't want any of your sanity.
DerFunk wrote:If such a thing comes to be, it will absolutely, positively, in no uncertain terms NOT be cheaper than an x86 alternative. Thinking otherwise is not insane, it's just willfully ignorant.
Redocbew wrote:Apple: Give me your money.
People: Ok.
Investors: THEY SHALL RULE THE WORLD!
Business people are weird.
Redocbew wrote:Business people are weird.
just brew it! wrote:Redocbew wrote:Business people are weird.
How so? Seems to me that they just understand that there are many aspects to having a successful business plan, and that Apple seems to have hit on a winning formula.
The Apple zealots who unquestioningly shell out big $ for the latest shiny thing are weirder, IMO.
jackbomb wrote:I'm giving Apple the benefit of the doubt. Intel hasn't significantly increased single core performance in years. I've been nothing but impressed with just how fast the latest round of iDevices feel. Even full desktop sites render just as quickly on an iPhone as they do on a Kaby Lake laptop. It's nuts!
DancinJack wrote:jackbomb wrote:I'm giving Apple the benefit of the doubt. Intel hasn't significantly increased single core performance in years. I've been nothing but impressed with just how fast the latest round of iDevices feel. Even full desktop sites render just as quickly on an iPhone as they do on a Kaby Lake laptop. It's nuts!
This kinda confuses me. It's like somewhere in Apple world there is this contingent that thinks Apple can just CRUSH Intel on single-threaded performance whenever they want. Y'all crazy.
Doesn't mean they can't make a good CPU+GPU and pull more stuff in-house and increase their profits. They're doing it as we speak. Just don't confuse that with the idea that Apple is doing it because they're so much more skilled than Intel or AMD.
Glorious wrote:You are saying the only difference between a "real" Mac with x86 and a "real" Mac with Apple ARM is that you won't be able to hackintosh for cheaper once Apple goes Apple ARM.
Glorious wrote:So, yes, that's crazy. You can buy a real Mac with x86 right now. Saying that you want Apple to force the issue and MAKE you go legitimate, I mean, uh, dude?
Glorious wrote:That is entirely about willpower and personal ethics, not instruction sets.
chuckula wrote:It's WindWalker. He looks at the fact that x86 processors are actually useful for tasks that don't include viewing Apple-Approved content and picking from curated Apple-Approved ideas as the greatest thing that's wrong with the world today.
windwalker wrote:Glorious wrote:That is entirely about willpower and personal ethics, not instruction sets.
Maybe to you. To me it's about price and quality, just like any other product. In the case of computing products performance is the largest part of quality.
Glorious wrote:I don't know anything about any of that, I'm just going by the reasoning as stated in his singular comment.
Which, yes, is so seriously strange that I'm actually mildly perplexed by it.
I can't rightly...
He wants Apple ARM so he won't be able to hackintosh anymore, something he had no problem doing previously because it saved him money?
I really... don't.. huh.
wow.
derFunkenstein wrote:If such a thing comes to be, it will absolutely, positively, in no uncertain terms NOT be cheaper than an x86 alternative. Thinking otherwise is not insane, it's just willfully ignorant.
Glorious wrote:I toyed with that idea, that maybe he seriously thought that Apple would just beneficently cut prices or something.
But then, I was like, I explicitly said that Apple would pocket the difference and he didn't challenge that notion.
Also, I mean, the entire reason that he is hackintoshing was because it was "cheaper" in the first place, right? So since he isn't paying the "Apple Tax" and understands that Apple has a huge markup that they aren't willing to share NOW, -BEFORE- they had a bunch of ready customers excited (for insane reasons) to own the first ARM Mac... so surely, SURELY, he can't be even crazier, right?
Like you say, willful ignorance. Heck, it's entirely possible that they won't just pocket the difference, but actually up the price overall to boot.
uni-mitation wrote:I have taken the time to read the article.
1- The article's sources is the author.
1.1- Author does not have any advanced technology degrees or any particular insight as to back-up his claims.
1.2- I will take author's statements to be market speculation for the express purpose to have influence in the equities market.
1.3- Therefore, I have no reason to believe anything the author says.
2- Why are we giving any weight to this article?
uni-mitation
windwalker wrote:That makes zero sense.
There is no reason, no business case and no market niche for an ARM Mac that is not significantly cheaper than an equivalent x86 model.
Redocbew wrote:Apple: Give me your money.
People: Ok.
Investors: THEY SHALL RULE THE WORLD!
Business people are weird.