Makosuke
May 6, 05:10 AM
I'm not so much joining in the discussion as publicly recording what I think is going to happen in a few years based not really on this prediction, but the way things are going in general, so that I can point to this post in a few years and either say "I told you so" or "look how clueless I was."
I think this prediction is right, at least in general terms, and while to hardcore geeks it may sound like a terrible idea, I doubt it is, and it makes a great deal of sense to Apple. That said, I expect Apple will continue to sell "pro" systems of some sort based on Intel chips for the foreseeable future, to cover the developer/Photoshop-jockey/video-editor market. They're just not going to sell all that many of them.
This is why the ARM transition will not be like the Intel transition (and remember we're not talking about something happening tomorrow):
For one thing, two years is a lot of time at the rate the ARM architecture has been advancing. Predicting anything about how fast the chips will be in 2013 (or how much Intel will have advanced by then) is difficult.
In the quarter the G5 Power Mac first shipped, back in Apple earned $44M on $1.7B in sales, and shipped 787K Macs. In the quarter the first Intel iMacs shipped, in Apple earned $410M on $4.36B, and sold 1.1M Macs.
In the most recent quarter, Apple's profit was $6B--more than their gross in and almost as much as the entire company's gross for all of 2003--on gross income of close to $25B. They sold 3.76M Macs, and more notably 4.69M iPads and well over 20M small-screen iOS devices. They also have something like $65 billion sitting in the bank, which is ridiculous.
Contrast this with Intel, which in the last quarter was doing extremely well, with gross of $12.8B and net of $3.16B. Or, for that matter, IBM, which had revenue of $24B and earnings of $2.9B.
In Apple was a relatively small-time player that got IBM to design a wicked-fast custom desktop CPU. In 2006 they were a somewhat larger company mostly on account of selling a lot of iPods, and weren't in a strong enough position to get IBM to do what they needed with the PPC architecture to the point it could compete with Intel's upcoming Core architecture. Today their Mac business alone is three times what it was then, it's the only segment of the PC industry actually expanding, and the company is HUGE--twice the size of Intel, in terms of financials. Heck, they could buy a controlling stake in Intel based purely on that company's market cap with cash on hand.
Further, of all those 25M+ iOS devices last quarter, every single one was running an ARM processor. While nearly 4 million Macs is nothing to sneeze at, Apple's bread and butter is iOS and ARM-based systems. They know them, they control the whole package, and they have an in-house CPU team for the architecture. One that, based on performance comparisons with the Xoom, is doing its job quite well. They've also managed to sell these devices at prices so low other companies are having serious trouble matching them, while maintaing very healthy profit margins.
As far as Apple is concerned--and with good reason--iOS on ARM is their future. There's no reason to stop selling Macs, but the market for console-style computers is not likely limited to handhelds and tablets--there's almost certainly a lot of demand in the bigger-laptop-with-a-keyboard space as well as large-screen desktops. With the rate of CPU power increase in ARM chips, within a couple of years they're likely to be powerful enough to comfortably handle desktop tasks, particularly considering that the average user really doesn't have any use for anything more than a basic dual-core system--everything else is for pros and bragging rights.
So, by way of prediction, I'd assume that Apple will continue to beef up its in-house ARM team, and once the desktop-grade chips are in place leverage that to replace what we currently think of as consumer Macs with beefier, larger-screen iOS based devices (or perhaps some iOS/MacOS hybrid thing to better handle indirect input, since pointing at a 27" touchscreen is ridiculous for more than a few minutes).
After all, Apple could--and very will might--dump a few billion dollars of their hoard into advancing the ARM architecture in some way that competitors can't match, and/or building out chip fab capabilities to keep prices low and availability high. Intel's entire R&D budget for 2010 was in the range of $6B, AMD's wasn't much over $1B, and Apple likes to control their own destiny, so it's not out of the question if they can hire good enough people.
I also bet that they will keep some "pro" machines--perhaps even those that'll keep the "Mac" moniker--in the lineup, for people who want more traditional workstation software, since there's still a lucrative market for that. These will presumably use Intel chips, but then who knows--even Microsoft is working on a version of Windows for ARM.
And outside the gamer market or the relatively small number of people who need or want a virtualized Windows environment, I seriously doubt most people will care. After all, it hasn't stopped them from lining up to buy iPads, and I have NEVER heard even the most ardent Windows fanboy rant about Windows with the same fervor as a half-dozen non-technical people I know personally who love their iPad.
Geeks and old-school Macheads like myself will wail and moan, and Apple won't care. If they did, the iPad would have run the MacOS.
In related news, Microsoft is in trouble.
I think this prediction is right, at least in general terms, and while to hardcore geeks it may sound like a terrible idea, I doubt it is, and it makes a great deal of sense to Apple. That said, I expect Apple will continue to sell "pro" systems of some sort based on Intel chips for the foreseeable future, to cover the developer/Photoshop-jockey/video-editor market. They're just not going to sell all that many of them.
This is why the ARM transition will not be like the Intel transition (and remember we're not talking about something happening tomorrow):
For one thing, two years is a lot of time at the rate the ARM architecture has been advancing. Predicting anything about how fast the chips will be in 2013 (or how much Intel will have advanced by then) is difficult.
In the quarter the G5 Power Mac first shipped, back in Apple earned $44M on $1.7B in sales, and shipped 787K Macs. In the quarter the first Intel iMacs shipped, in Apple earned $410M on $4.36B, and sold 1.1M Macs.
In the most recent quarter, Apple's profit was $6B--more than their gross in and almost as much as the entire company's gross for all of 2003--on gross income of close to $25B. They sold 3.76M Macs, and more notably 4.69M iPads and well over 20M small-screen iOS devices. They also have something like $65 billion sitting in the bank, which is ridiculous.
Contrast this with Intel, which in the last quarter was doing extremely well, with gross of $12.8B and net of $3.16B. Or, for that matter, IBM, which had revenue of $24B and earnings of $2.9B.
In Apple was a relatively small-time player that got IBM to design a wicked-fast custom desktop CPU. In 2006 they were a somewhat larger company mostly on account of selling a lot of iPods, and weren't in a strong enough position to get IBM to do what they needed with the PPC architecture to the point it could compete with Intel's upcoming Core architecture. Today their Mac business alone is three times what it was then, it's the only segment of the PC industry actually expanding, and the company is HUGE--twice the size of Intel, in terms of financials. Heck, they could buy a controlling stake in Intel based purely on that company's market cap with cash on hand.
Further, of all those 25M+ iOS devices last quarter, every single one was running an ARM processor. While nearly 4 million Macs is nothing to sneeze at, Apple's bread and butter is iOS and ARM-based systems. They know them, they control the whole package, and they have an in-house CPU team for the architecture. One that, based on performance comparisons with the Xoom, is doing its job quite well. They've also managed to sell these devices at prices so low other companies are having serious trouble matching them, while maintaing very healthy profit margins.
As far as Apple is concerned--and with good reason--iOS on ARM is their future. There's no reason to stop selling Macs, but the market for console-style computers is not likely limited to handhelds and tablets--there's almost certainly a lot of demand in the bigger-laptop-with-a-keyboard space as well as large-screen desktops. With the rate of CPU power increase in ARM chips, within a couple of years they're likely to be powerful enough to comfortably handle desktop tasks, particularly considering that the average user really doesn't have any use for anything more than a basic dual-core system--everything else is for pros and bragging rights.
So, by way of prediction, I'd assume that Apple will continue to beef up its in-house ARM team, and once the desktop-grade chips are in place leverage that to replace what we currently think of as consumer Macs with beefier, larger-screen iOS based devices (or perhaps some iOS/MacOS hybrid thing to better handle indirect input, since pointing at a 27" touchscreen is ridiculous for more than a few minutes).
After all, Apple could--and very will might--dump a few billion dollars of their hoard into advancing the ARM architecture in some way that competitors can't match, and/or building out chip fab capabilities to keep prices low and availability high. Intel's entire R&D budget for 2010 was in the range of $6B, AMD's wasn't much over $1B, and Apple likes to control their own destiny, so it's not out of the question if they can hire good enough people.
I also bet that they will keep some "pro" machines--perhaps even those that'll keep the "Mac" moniker--in the lineup, for people who want more traditional workstation software, since there's still a lucrative market for that. These will presumably use Intel chips, but then who knows--even Microsoft is working on a version of Windows for ARM.
And outside the gamer market or the relatively small number of people who need or want a virtualized Windows environment, I seriously doubt most people will care. After all, it hasn't stopped them from lining up to buy iPads, and I have NEVER heard even the most ardent Windows fanboy rant about Windows with the same fervor as a half-dozen non-technical people I know personally who love their iPad.
Geeks and old-school Macheads like myself will wail and moan, and Apple won't care. If they did, the iPad would have run the MacOS.
In related news, Microsoft is in trouble.
markcres
Apr 25, 11:13 AM
Jobs is spinning his BS again as usual. Even when there is overwheming evidence to the contrary...he still insults the intelligence of his customers who he clearly regards as beneath him.
Apple is:
http://www.ukscience.org/BB.jpg
Apple is:
http://www.ukscience.org/BB.jpg
iApples
Mar 26, 10:20 PM
I didnt realize a release date was set:cool:
Neither did I :P
Neither did I :P
lazyrighteye
Apr 21, 03:44 PM
Mac Pro rumors still strike me as odd any more.
How far are we from that line fading into the sunset?
My how times have changed... ;)
How far are we from that line fading into the sunset?
My how times have changed... ;)
ender land
Apr 10, 01:33 PM
Yes it is, and continually showing me that the right answer is 2 in spite of all evidence to the contrary.
Fixed that for you.
Fixed that for you.
macindork
Apr 22, 10:24 AM
Citation needed.
Even our Active-Active cluster boxes have redundant power supplies plugged into seperate electrical circuits and wired to independant UPSes, never mind our Active-Passive cluster solutions...
The fact is, most data centers do go for maximum redundancies without single points of failure on the hardware side.
When you have a massively parallele solution with custom software that is built to run on non-redundant hardware like Google built with their search engine, yeah, you can afford to skimp on hardware. They don't care if 1 node out of their 10000 fails, and the software doesn't see the impact. But that 1 specialised custom application is not an industry standard and is far from the norm in building data centers.
The fact is, the Xserve wasn't selling well and it had all the server features. A rackable Mac Pro would sell even less to those Xserve buyers. Forget redundant power supplies if you don't believe in them, just lack of LOM or hot-swap drives is a killer by itself.
And seriously, Thunderbolt ? Host based storage ? Forget that, to get into my data center, you need multi-path Fiber Channel. Thank god at least Apple recognizes that and offers the option on the Mac Pro. Thunderbolt is not a SAN technology and it's not replacing SANs anytime soon. I don't want to manage hundreds of storage arrays for each hosts. I want to manage 1 unified storage array and then present LUNs to my hosts as needed. That way, I get better distribution of my existing storage and can even manage some over-provisionning depending on the technology I use.
A lot of people here never worked with enterprise-grade systems. A rackable Mac Pro would at best be used as someone else stated, to rack along video/audio equipement in a studio. Not to rack into a data center.
I work for a school district and even we go for redundant PS when possible, especially on our ESX boxes. Believe it or not though we are still gigabit to our SAN and while Fiber Channel may be awesome in this scenario do you not think Thunderbolt would have the throughput for say, a DAS box? Then again, we aren't as demanding in our environment. ESX is nice in this way because its all of our servers (well, almost all virtualized) and one Equallogic.
Even our Active-Active cluster boxes have redundant power supplies plugged into seperate electrical circuits and wired to independant UPSes, never mind our Active-Passive cluster solutions...
The fact is, most data centers do go for maximum redundancies without single points of failure on the hardware side.
When you have a massively parallele solution with custom software that is built to run on non-redundant hardware like Google built with their search engine, yeah, you can afford to skimp on hardware. They don't care if 1 node out of their 10000 fails, and the software doesn't see the impact. But that 1 specialised custom application is not an industry standard and is far from the norm in building data centers.
The fact is, the Xserve wasn't selling well and it had all the server features. A rackable Mac Pro would sell even less to those Xserve buyers. Forget redundant power supplies if you don't believe in them, just lack of LOM or hot-swap drives is a killer by itself.
And seriously, Thunderbolt ? Host based storage ? Forget that, to get into my data center, you need multi-path Fiber Channel. Thank god at least Apple recognizes that and offers the option on the Mac Pro. Thunderbolt is not a SAN technology and it's not replacing SANs anytime soon. I don't want to manage hundreds of storage arrays for each hosts. I want to manage 1 unified storage array and then present LUNs to my hosts as needed. That way, I get better distribution of my existing storage and can even manage some over-provisionning depending on the technology I use.
A lot of people here never worked with enterprise-grade systems. A rackable Mac Pro would at best be used as someone else stated, to rack along video/audio equipement in a studio. Not to rack into a data center.
I work for a school district and even we go for redundant PS when possible, especially on our ESX boxes. Believe it or not though we are still gigabit to our SAN and while Fiber Channel may be awesome in this scenario do you not think Thunderbolt would have the throughput for say, a DAS box? Then again, we aren't as demanding in our environment. ESX is nice in this way because its all of our servers (well, almost all virtualized) and one Equallogic.
Consultant
Apr 26, 02:51 PM
Too bad Android makers are basically giving them away to gain market share.
And doesn't Nokia still making more money on ovi than Google's android store?
And doesn't Nokia still making more money on ovi than Google's android store?
scoobydoo99
Apr 25, 11:31 AM
Besides if you encrypt your backup, nothing can happen. Thank you, have a good day.
Puhleeeeze. We are not concerned about your average criminal or private investigator. We are concerned about the us government, homeland security, cia, nsa, fbi, etc.
To say "nothing can happen" is absurdly naive.
Puhleeeeze. We are not concerned about your average criminal or private investigator. We are concerned about the us government, homeland security, cia, nsa, fbi, etc.
To say "nothing can happen" is absurdly naive.
_Gold_1.jpg "The Xperia X10 mini has a")
iApples
Mar 26, 10:20 PM
I didnt realize a release date was set:cool:
Neither did I :P
Neither did I :P
alec
Aug 2, 11:17 AM
I know what also to expect from WWDC -- a nice stock rise! Pretty nice if you bought Apple stock recently, considering it was at $50 a month ago and now is over $67 a share....
rovex
Mar 28, 10:08 AM
Bad move to keep the iPhone out for 2 years. But if it is indeed the case the iPhone 5 better be really amazing,.
michaelrjohnson
Aug 2, 02:29 PM
But minor speed bumps is all they have to talk about.
It was the introduction of all these products that people keep referring to. IIRC, the MacBook, MacBook Pro, intel iMac, intel MacMini did not exist before January 1, 2006. All of these products were released in this calendar year.
It was the introduction of all these products that people keep referring to. IIRC, the MacBook, MacBook Pro, intel iMac, intel MacMini did not exist before January 1, 2006. All of these products were released in this calendar year.
Dr.Gargoyle
Aug 7, 07:36 PM
After some serious thinking I have come to the conclusion that $5K for a Rev. A is a bit too much of a gamble for me, especially considering the "normal" expected Rev. A snags. I wish Apple had better quality control.
However, I might get a Rev. A MP if early adaptors doesn't report too much of glitches.
However, I might get a Rev. A MP if early adaptors doesn't report too much of glitches.
tonyoramos1
Apr 24, 01:11 PM
More likely that they are producing a higher res iMac display first.
And this site has the most archaic, convoluted commenting sign-up/system I have ever seen. It should be abolished and replaced with Facebook Comments. How many distinctions of value are there really to be said about feature-limited Mac products anyway. Don't mistake this as a critique of Apple.
And this site has the most archaic, convoluted commenting sign-up/system I have ever seen. It should be abolished and replaced with Facebook Comments. How many distinctions of value are there really to be said about feature-limited Mac products anyway. Don't mistake this as a critique of Apple.
powers74
May 6, 08:12 AM
So they can customize/design their own chips. I've been predicting this for years now.
aswitcher
Jul 30, 07:14 AM
i dont think this will be a dream feature phone but it will work wonderfully with iSync and .Mac, iTunes, iPhoto, Frontrow (BT controller), Mail, iCal, AddressBook etc
I hope it has a 2 megapixel camera and at least half a gig of ram.
I hope it has a 2 megapixel camera and at least half a gig of ram.
leman
May 6, 01:58 AM
If ARM is indeed able to make high-performance CPUs, then a move like this would be one of the most significant ones in the computing history. Let's face it: the x86 architecture is a dead end. Its needlessly complicated and builds on obsolete tech. Internally, the modern x86 CPUs aren't even x86 anymore - they decompose, recompile and reorder the machine code as they execute it. The ARM assembly is more suited for modern computing as it is more efficient as the x86 code and allows better CPU pipeline utilization.
The real question is whether ARM is able to create a CPU which is powerful enough to compete with Intel's offerings. The x86 may be inefficient but the sophisticated design of Intel CPUs results in great performance. ARM must really step on it to attain these levels.
P.S. If something like this should happen, I am sure that ARM will include hardware emulation layer for x86 instructions, for compatibility with older software. Any anyway, what does it cost to recompile an application? Indeed: nothing (if the application is competently written, that is).
The real question is whether ARM is able to create a CPU which is powerful enough to compete with Intel's offerings. The x86 may be inefficient but the sophisticated design of Intel CPUs results in great performance. ARM must really step on it to attain these levels.
P.S. If something like this should happen, I am sure that ARM will include hardware emulation layer for x86 instructions, for compatibility with older software. Any anyway, what does it cost to recompile an application? Indeed: nothing (if the application is competently written, that is).
QCassidy352
May 8, 05:25 PM
The usefulness of MobileMe just doesn't justify the $99 pricetag -- especially when other services offer something similar for free.
I disagree. First, nobody else offers it all in one place. Second, nobody else has the same simplicity. Third, there are features (most notably, find my iphone) that can't be replicated no matter what other service you use. And when you consider that you can get MM for $60 at Amazon and elsewhere, I think it's more than worth it. $5/month is worth it for any of things I just listed, or even just to be ad-free.
I disagree. First, nobody else offers it all in one place. Second, nobody else has the same simplicity. Third, there are features (most notably, find my iphone) that can't be replicated no matter what other service you use. And when you consider that you can get MM for $60 at Amazon and elsewhere, I think it's more than worth it. $5/month is worth it for any of things I just listed, or even just to be ad-free.
0815
Apr 5, 01:19 PM
I can understand Apple's concern here it could give the impression to an uneducated user that it is OK to jailbreak their phone since they are being encouraged to by what would seem like a legitimate source. I don't think it's much of an issue for Scion owners though as they are probably used to sub-par performance.
From the legal point of view it is ok. There should be better education about the risks when jailbreaking and how to protect better against those. But you can legally jailbreak and protect against most risks (if you do it right)
From the legal point of view it is ok. There should be better education about the risks when jailbreaking and how to protect better against those. But you can legally jailbreak and protect against most risks (if you do it right)
squirrellydw
Apr 26, 03:34 PM
Of course, because Apple is making the same mistakes that let Windows get +95% market share in spite of Apple's early lead in PCs.
A "closed" eco-system has no chance against an "open" eco-system.
When will you people learn.....Apple is not about market share, they are in business to make MONEY. Yes they would like to have as much market share as they can but they make high end products and sell them at a high price. No phone or product is better than another, it's all in what YOU like. I like Apple products, I switched from MS for a reason, I liked what OSX and iLife did more than what MS offered. For me it's the best, maybe not for you. What's better a FORD or a BWM? They both get you from point A to point B one just has more style. That doesn't mean it's better, it's what YOU like.
Also both eco systems are CLOSED. Google just licenses Android out, you still have to ROOT or JAILBREAK both to add more features.
A "closed" eco-system has no chance against an "open" eco-system.
When will you people learn.....Apple is not about market share, they are in business to make MONEY. Yes they would like to have as much market share as they can but they make high end products and sell them at a high price. No phone or product is better than another, it's all in what YOU like. I like Apple products, I switched from MS for a reason, I liked what OSX and iLife did more than what MS offered. For me it's the best, maybe not for you. What's better a FORD or a BWM? They both get you from point A to point B one just has more style. That doesn't mean it's better, it's what YOU like.
Also both eco systems are CLOSED. Google just licenses Android out, you still have to ROOT or JAILBREAK both to add more features.
HiVolt
Apr 21, 05:22 PM
It would be nice. As I'm forced to use a Mac Pro with no redundancy at work to run some Mac specific software. At least my rack is wide enough, I slide in thru the side and on a shelf.
A 3U-4U Mac Pro with optional redundant PSU and hardware RAID5 would be great. We would certainly buy one at work.
A 3U-4U Mac Pro with optional redundant PSU and hardware RAID5 would be great. We would certainly buy one at work.
kiljoy616
Apr 24, 12:46 AM
The past year my right eye's vision has decreased. Interestingly enough that is around when i got my iphone 4, can lack of my eye working and the phone making it easier make my vision worse? Probably not and just a coincidence.
Anyway i wonder if apple will do the whole "It is a 500$ upgrade for retina" thing or it will just be a thing all mbp's have.
No your just getting old. ;)
Anyway i wonder if apple will do the whole "It is a 500$ upgrade for retina" thing or it will just be a thing all mbp's have.
No your just getting old. ;)
ftaok
Apr 7, 02:51 PM
I can say CONFIDENTLY that the war is NOT over. It's been what 2 years? No way. Apple may have the upper hand in the battle but has NOT won the war.
What I'm saying is that by the time Android or WebOS or QNX catch up to the iPad, Apple will already be onto the next big thing. Tablets will have peaked, and the weak players will have dropped out.
So instead of following Apple and forever having your products known as iPad killers, why not spend the money that you'd put into designing mediocre tablets into creating the next device? I'm sure that Sammy, Moto, RIM, etc all have some budget to develop the next generation of devices, but I think they need to spend a lot more on the R&D.
For instance, when netbooks were all the rage, everyone was demanding that Apple come up with their own netbook. For whatever reason, Apple wasn't (and still isn't) in the netbook market. Instead, they spent their energies (and money) developing the successor to the netbook. In hindsight, we should have all seen it coming. Jobs even said that Apple couldn't make a decent 'computer' for less than $500. Apple was busy creating the iPad to be that device that folks would shell out $500 for. Genius.
So instead of waging a long, drawn out war against Apple for a small slice of the tablet market, work on making the successor to the tablet.
What I'm saying is that by the time Android or WebOS or QNX catch up to the iPad, Apple will already be onto the next big thing. Tablets will have peaked, and the weak players will have dropped out.
So instead of following Apple and forever having your products known as iPad killers, why not spend the money that you'd put into designing mediocre tablets into creating the next device? I'm sure that Sammy, Moto, RIM, etc all have some budget to develop the next generation of devices, but I think they need to spend a lot more on the R&D.
For instance, when netbooks were all the rage, everyone was demanding that Apple come up with their own netbook. For whatever reason, Apple wasn't (and still isn't) in the netbook market. Instead, they spent their energies (and money) developing the successor to the netbook. In hindsight, we should have all seen it coming. Jobs even said that Apple couldn't make a decent 'computer' for less than $500. Apple was busy creating the iPad to be that device that folks would shell out $500 for. Genius.
So instead of waging a long, drawn out war against Apple for a small slice of the tablet market, work on making the successor to the tablet.
Mad Mac Maniac
Mar 26, 09:57 PM
as long as it is a solid enough update, I'll be happy :)
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario