4 ms·
There's two problems with that story: first, the famous switch from PowerPC to Intel happened when the desktop was the king, and app developers had strong incen
by apetrovic 9y ago
There's two problems with that story: first, the famous switch from PowerPC to Intel happened when the desktop was the king, and app developers had strong incentive to recompile programs to the new platform. Right now? Not so much.
Second, while Apple's mobile processors are currently the best in ARM world, for "pro" desktop computers Apple needs desktop-grade processor. Making something comparable to i7 isn't such an easy and cheap job.
- collyw 9y ago> the famous switch from PowerPC to Intel happened when the desktop was the king, I though one of the major reasons for the switch to Intel was the power consumption and performance on laptops.
- emodendroket 9y agoI'm thinking that in this case "desktop" is cast in opposition to tablets and cell phones and laptop computers can be considered "desktop" devices.
- Lramseyer 9y ago> Second, while Apple's mobile processors are currently the best in ARM world, for "pro" desktop computers Apple needs desktop-grade processor. Making something comparable to i7 isn't such an easy and cheap job. Qualcomm, NVIDIA, and Cavium have created very powerful ARM chips for non-mobile application. Apple definitely has the chip architects, the money, and the experience to do such a thing.
- lev99 9y agoI have serious doubts that the marketplace can support 3 desktop/laptop workstation CPU manufacturers. (Amd, Intel, and now Apple)
- oneplane 9y agoI don't think it matters to Apple since they will be using their own chips. Intel will simply sell less, and AMD will not change at all. By the way, don't forget Broadcom, Marvell, Cavium, IBM etc. as they are doing big bucks with CPU's and SoC's as well.
- lev99 9y agoIt matters to Apple, CPUs are a very big expense for them, and the performance of their computers are very important to them. I'm specifically worried about the performance workstation/gaming cpu market, which Broadcom Marvell, Cavium, and IBM are not major players in. It's currently AMD and Intel. Apple would need to sell a lot of macs with the new CPUs to make the R&D cost worth it and the new CPUs would have to be very fast or they won't sell macs.
- oneplane 9y agoI meant the impact on global CPU markets won't matter to Apple, they don't care if Intel makes less money.
- tambourine_man 9y agoAdobe for one is making a boatload of money from CC subscriptions, record numbers, so I wouldn't worry too much about that (I imagine MS is equally happy with Office 365 on the desktop). Besides, there's no Carbon to Cocoa or CodeWarrior to Xcode port, so aside from a very small percentage of optimized assembly code, it shouldn't be nearly as hard.
- megy 9y ago>Second, while Apple's mobile processors are currently the best in ARM world, for "pro" desktop computers Apple needs desktop-grade processor. Making something comparable to i7 isn't such an easy and cheap job. Good point, I guess Apple never though of that.
- freehunter 9y agoIt's quite impressive how many people in the comments can so easily come up with big show-stoppers that Apple never thought about. Must be why Apple is struggling financially and can't get anyone to buy their products.
- eklavya 9y agoWhile being sarcastic you might have missed the sarcasm of the parent :)
- freehunter 9y agoI both understood and was adding to the sarcasm.
- cerved 9y agoAlso worth noting is Windows and x86 desktop dominance at the time likely made porting Mac software to x86 easier