6 ms·

The question is as users should we care? If this is cheaper for Apple will they actually lower product prices or just enhance their own margins. Will this res

The question is as users should we care? If this is cheaper for Apple will they actually lower product prices or just enhance their own margins. Will this result in any superior performance on a cost-adjusted basis?

sudosysgen 7y ago
This is Apple. Unless there is a major downside, they will keep the same prices or increase it.
electriclove 7y ago
Apple's gains in chip performance are incredible and I would prefer to have an alternative to Intel. If I can get better performance and they keep the price the same, I care.
caycep 7y ago
for ARM, power per watt. It's always been the advantage. Controlling the stack w/ better vertical integration as well will probably yield more coherent product design. You can tell re how "put-together" a product an iPad or iPhone is vs. a Mac these days. While maybe not yielding direct customer, user-facing benefits, the under-the-hood benefits would definitely improve customer experience.
evo_9 7y ago
Users that run VM's because they need to run OSX and Win10, etc most definitely care.
- timrichard 7y ago
  Also, in the pro audio sector it's common for people to spend quite a bit more than the cost of the Mac on Intel-specific DAW plugins.
  - rewgs 7y ago
    Citation/example?
    - timrichard 7y ago
      Heh, well the list price for Waves Horizon bundle is $3,999 and that's one vendor... A lot of the plugins those users acquire over time are produced by individual devs or small Indy shops, who may not be around any more or inclined to develop Arm versions of older products. You'll find threads on gearslutz.com where some people aren't upgrading to Catalina because 32-bit plugins aren't supported any more.
      - rewgs 7y ago
        I was referring to the "Intel-specific" part of your comment, not the price. I'm a professional composer and haven't ever come across an Intel-specific plugin -- loads of people use AMD. I think what you meant is x86-specific, but as other people have pointed out in this thread and others, it's expected that Apple will provide the ability to simply recompile for ARM. No big deal.
libertine 7y ago
>If this is cheaper for Apple will they actually lower product prices or just enhance their own margins. If this would happen, most definitely the improvement on margins. Why would they lower prices?
- scarface74 7y ago
  We have an existence proof. The iPads are already a better value when you compare price/performance. Even the low end $329 iPad can hold its own performance wise to low and midrange laptops. The high end iPad Pros are cheaper and faster than lowend and midrange laptops.
  - DeathArrow 7y ago
    Are you suggesting that Apple laptops are too expensive for what they're worth? How is moving Macs to Arm going to improve this?
    - scarface74 7y ago
      In a capitalist society, something is worth what enough people are willing to pay for it. Apple pays much more for a Intel chips than its own ARM chips. Again, you can look at the price/performance of iPads compared to laptop Macs.
mikhailt 7y ago
Of course, we should care. We are talking about losing the standard x86 platform support (which allows for Windows/Linux support if not total OOB support) to a custom Apple platform that may be more locked down to the point that Linux may not even care to add any support for it (T2-Macs have been difficult to add support in Linux). This drops the value a lot if you're not an exclusive macOS user. 1. We don't know what impact this will have for Bootcamp and Windows, since Windows 10 on ARM right now is customized for specific ARM CPUs like Snapdragon. 2. Same for virtualization, we don't know the performance hit it is going to have. A lot of people still need to use Windows for specific software that is not available on Windows or macOS where 32-bit support can be retained with older macOS releases. 3. Going the other direction, ARM means we could also see easier porting of iOS apps to macOS via Catalyst with more consistent APIs. But that could also mean less focus on macOS overall and everyone switching to iOS to port to macOS rather than working on two separate versions. This has both pros and cons and we won't know the full extent until a few years later.
- scarface74 7y ago
  Porting iOS to Macs don’t require ARM. Almost every iOS app started life running on x86. The iOS simulator runs iOS software compiled for x86 linked to x86 versions of the iOS framework.
  - mikhailt 7y ago
    I didn't say it does, I'm just saying that it'll be easier. Instead of working on both x86/ARM frameworks, they'll just stop supporting x86 (freeze) and only update on the ARM framework from now on. They did the same thing with PowerPC and x86-32. No reason to expect them to support x86-64 in 5-10 years if they switch all Macs to ARM.
- jshaqaw 7y ago
  Since Apple effectively stopped innovating OSX a decade ago (unless you really need each new iteration of emojis) just get a Windows machine if Windows software is essential to your workflow. I have used macs a long time but got a supplemental Windows machine for my office to not bother with fiddly virtualization issues. Windows has largely caught up with OSX as OSX has stagnated or outright decayed. It makes me sad to say that given the Apple fanboy I once was but reality is reality.

sudosysgen 7y ago

This is Apple. Unless there is a major downside, they will keep the same prices or increase it.

electriclove 7y ago

Apple's gains in chip performance are incredible and I would prefer to have an alternative to Intel. If I can get better performance and they keep the price the same, I care.

caycep 7y ago

for ARM, power per watt. It's always been the advantage. Controlling the stack w/ better vertical integration as well will probably yield more coherent product design. You can tell re how "put-together" a product an iPad or iPhone is vs. a Mac these days. While maybe not yielding direct customer, user-facing benefits, the under-the-hood benefits would definitely improve customer experience.

evo_9 7y ago

Users that run VM's because they need to run OSX and Win10, etc most definitely care.

timrichard 7y ago
Also, in the pro audio sector it's common for people to spend quite a bit more than the cost of the Mac on Intel-specific DAW plugins.
- rewgs 7y ago
  Citation/example?
  - timrichard 7y ago
    Heh, well the list price for Waves Horizon bundle is $3,999 and that's one vendor... A lot of the plugins those users acquire over time are produced by individual devs or small Indy shops, who may not be around any more or inclined to develop Arm versions of older products. You'll find threads on gearslutz.com where some people aren't upgrading to Catalina because 32-bit plugins aren't supported any more.
    - rewgs 7y ago
      I was referring to the "Intel-specific" part of your comment, not the price. I'm a professional composer and haven't ever come across an Intel-specific plugin -- loads of people use AMD. I think what you meant is x86-specific, but as other people have pointed out in this thread and others, it's expected that Apple will provide the ability to simply recompile for ARM. No big deal.

libertine 7y ago

>If this is cheaper for Apple will they actually lower product prices or just enhance their own margins. If this would happen, most definitely the improvement on margins. Why would they lower prices?

scarface74 7y ago
We have an existence proof. The iPads are already a better value when you compare price/performance. Even the low end $329 iPad can hold its own performance wise to low and midrange laptops. The high end iPad Pros are cheaper and faster than lowend and midrange laptops.
- DeathArrow 7y ago
  Are you suggesting that Apple laptops are too expensive for what they're worth? How is moving Macs to Arm going to improve this?
  - scarface74 7y ago
    In a capitalist society, something is worth what enough people are willing to pay for it. Apple pays much more for a Intel chips than its own ARM chips. Again, you can look at the price/performance of iPads compared to laptop Macs.

mikhailt 7y ago

Of course, we should care. We are talking about losing the standard x86 platform support (which allows for Windows/Linux support if not total OOB support) to a custom Apple platform that may be more locked down to the point that Linux may not even care to add any support for it (T2-Macs have been difficult to add support in Linux). This drops the value a lot if you're not an exclusive macOS user. 1. We don't know what impact this will have for Bootcamp and Windows, since Windows 10 on ARM right now is customized for specific ARM CPUs like Snapdragon. 2. Same for virtualization, we don't know the performance hit it is going to have. A lot of people still need to use Windows for specific software that is not available on Windows or macOS where 32-bit support can be retained with older macOS releases. 3. Going the other direction, ARM means we could also see easier porting of iOS apps to macOS via Catalyst with more consistent APIs. But that could also mean less focus on macOS overall and everyone switching to iOS to port to macOS rather than working on two separate versions. This has both pros and cons and we won't know the full extent until a few years later.

scarface74 7y ago
Porting iOS to Macs don’t require ARM. Almost every iOS app started life running on x86. The iOS simulator runs iOS software compiled for x86 linked to x86 versions of the iOS framework.
- mikhailt 7y ago
  I didn't say it does, I'm just saying that it'll be easier. Instead of working on both x86/ARM frameworks, they'll just stop supporting x86 (freeze) and only update on the ARM framework from now on. They did the same thing with PowerPC and x86-32. No reason to expect them to support x86-64 in 5-10 years if they switch all Macs to ARM.
jshaqaw 7y ago
Since Apple effectively stopped innovating OSX a decade ago (unless you really need each new iteration of emojis) just get a Windows machine if Windows software is essential to your workflow. I have used macs a long time but got a supplemental Windows machine for my office to not bother with fiddly virtualization issues. Windows has largely caught up with OSX as OSX has stagnated or outright decayed. It makes me sad to say that given the Apple fanboy I once was but reality is reality.