15 ms·

I fully expect any reduction in costs for Apple will get sent to their shareholders, not the consumers.

ianhowson 6y ago
Bingo. Estimates vary wildly, but I've seen figures saying that Axx CPUs cost Apple about $50 each. Even if it's more like $100, that's still an insane amount of additional profit per unit to be extracted. They don't need to deal with single-supplier hassles and they get much more control over what cores go into their SoC. This is sort-of-OK for consumers but amazing for Apple and its shareholers.
- snemvalts 6y ago
  Apple's services already make more money than their Mac business. There aren't enough macs sold for this to have a big impact
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    Even on the hardware side, they sell more than ten times as many iPhones as Macs.
- jacurtis 6y ago
  You could also argue that significant cuts to costs of already-profitable Mac computers, could lead to significantly higher sales volumes. Greater marketshare also provides more value to shareholders meaning that shareholders still win, as do consumers. More people with macs (and probably iPads/iPhones) would also increase other profit centers for Apple such as services (their highest profit center), warranties, and accessories. The profits and loyalty from these could easily far outweigh the $100-$300 of extra margin they might gain from keeping Mac prices the same. Meaning that price cuts to macs might actually be more strategically beneficial (to EVERYONE) than hoarding higher margins.
- askafriend 6y ago
  > amazing for Apple and its shareholers This only makes sense if you know nothing about Apple's business. You really think they're doing this to save $50 from ~5m Macs? You really think all this upheaval is for a mere $250m a year in savings? It'll cost them 10x that in pain alone to migrate to a new platform. Come on now....$250m is nothing at Apple scale. Think bigger. Even if you hate Apple, think bigger about their nefariousness (if your view is that they have bad intentions - one I don't agree with).
  - alharith 6y ago
    It also only makes sense if you know nothing about economics in general. Lowering the price while maintaining existing margins just opens the door to more consumers available to purchase the product and overall increases shareholder value due to more sales.
  - thefounder 6y ago
    I'm not sure how you calculated that but they sell about 20m macs per year not 5m. I also doubt the chips cost them 50$ per unit. The savings may worth few billions so it's not really like nothing. And they wouls save this every year. Will this change cost them 10x in pain alone? I doubt it. They already make the chips.
    - askafriend 6y ago
      > I'm not sure how you calculated that but they sell about 20m macs per year not 5m Quarterly numbers come in between 4.5-5m units these days but point taken - I recalled numbers for the wrong timeframe. > I also doubt the chips cost them 50$ per unit. The savings may worth few billions so it's not really like nothing. The true cost of this move is reflected in more than the R&D. This is a long multi-year effort involving several parties with competing interests. People are talking here as if they just flipped a switch to save costs. Let me make this clear. In my view, this is an offensive/strategic move to drive differentiation, not a defensive move to save costs (though if this works, that could be a big benefit down the road). Apple has a long history of these kinds of moves (that don't just involve chips). This is the same response I have to people peddling conspiracy theories that Apple loves making money off of selling dongles as a core strategy (dongles aren't the point, wireless is; focusing on dongles is missing the forest for the trees).
- ogre_codes 6y ago
  I suspect the big motivation for Apple is less about squeezing a few dollars more profit per system and more about shipping systems which just aren't possible on Intel's roadmap. Just putting the A12Z into the previous 12" MacBook would be a massively better computer with better battery life, better performance, and significantly less expensive. All while Apple maintains their margins. This isn't a zero sum game. Being able to ship less expensive computers which perform better is a win for consumers and Apple shareholders at the some time. The only loser here is Intel.
  - zerkten 6y ago
    > Just putting the A12Z into the previous 12" MacBook would be a massively better computer with better battery life, better performance, and significantly less expensive. All while Apple maintains their margins. Don't we basically know that from the Surface X?
    - ogre_codes 6y ago
      > Don't we basically know that from the Surface X? Don't have to venture that far, we know it from the iPad Pro.
    - mlindner 6y ago
      Microsoft doesn't control the hardware very much and definitely doesn't control the software developers whereas Apple completely controls the former and has a lot of leverage with the latter.
  - tonyedgecombe 6y ago
    You can see that with the latest MacBook Pro 13", if you buy one of the cheaper devices it comes with last years processors. Intel are clearly having problems meeting customer demand.
- michaelmrose 6y ago
  Cost of cpu is unit cost + all other costs including r and d divided by units. We also don't arrive at a reasonable estimate of unit costs by taking a range of estimates and picking the estimate most favorable to our position. I also don't believe it's reasonable to assume that switching to arm is as simple as putting an iPad cpu into a laptop shell. Here is an estimate that their 2018 model costs 72 just to make not to design and make. https://www.techinsights.com/blog/apple-iphone-xs-max-teardown https://www.techinsights.com/blog/apple-iphone-xs-max-teardo... The a14 that will power a MacBook is likely going to be more expensive not less. Especially with 15B transistors on the a14 vs less than 7B on a12. Average selling price of Intel cpu looks like around $126. This includes a lot of low end cpus which is exactly the kind of cpu apple fans like to compare. Apple may realize greater control and better battery life with the switch but they won't save a pile of money and thoughts about increasing performance are fanciful speculation that Apple, the people with the expertise are too smart to engage in.
  - TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
    Indeed. Apple is going to have to eat R&D costs that were previously bundled in Intel's pricing. And Mac sales are relatively small compared to the Windows market, so economies of scale are going to be less significant. Which means the actual per-CPU fab cost is going to become a smaller part of the complete development and production cost of a run. And that total cost is the only one that matters. I expect savings can still be made, because Apple will stop contributing to Intel's profits. On the other hand I'm sure Apple was already buying CPUs at a sizeable discount. Either way it's an open question if Apple's margins are going to look much healthier. IMO an important motivation is low power/TDP for AR/VR. Ax will also eventually give Apple the option of a single unified development model, which will allow OS-specific optimisations and improvements inside the CPU/GPU. Ax has the potential to become MacOS/iOS/A(R)OS on a chip in a way that Intel CPUs never could.
- 72deluxe 6y ago
  They’ll pass the savings onto the consumers though right?? I mean, a fully specced MacBook costs over £3000 which seems expensive... Here’s hoping anyway!!
  - imtringued 6y ago
    Sure, they'll pass the $50 savings on. You are overestimating how much a CPU costs...
    - wooger 6y ago
      It's more than just a CPU though - this will make the components of a Mac massively similar to an iPad, and probably save money on many other components. It also removes any need for a dedicated GPU in their high-end laptops, which is probably $200 alone. I have no idea how they justify the prices for their lower end laptops as-is, as they have worse screen and performace than recent iPads in pretty much all cases.
- m463 6y ago
  But customers are going towards an entirely entirely closed everything. ios is apple languages, apple signature required to run code, apple processors. Desktop machines are the last bit of freedom in the apple ecosystem. This isn't "sort-of-ok", it's "bad-for-customers" and "bad-for-developers".
  - nisten 6y ago
    This is just my opinion but I think it's great for consumers and a good restriction for developers. As a consumer you shouldn't be running unsigned software because you're putting not only your data at risk but any data you have access to. And as a developer on mac you can still run anything reasonably well in a VM. If you're using node, you should be running that in a virtualized environment in the first place, albeit I'm too lazy myself to always set that all up. Actually it's pretty amazing that now we'll be able to run an entire x86 OS environment on an ARM chip and get very usable performance too.
    - HeadsUpHigh 6y ago
      As someone on linux I've never run signed software ever in my life. Guess I've lost all my data and haven't even noticed!
      - m463 6y ago
        Linux signs its software.
        HeadsUpHigh 6y ago
        I mean signed by Apple or any big corporation.
      - willtim 6y ago
        Are you sure? Packages are signed for most of the mainstream distributions.
    - dwaite 6y ago
ogre_codes 6y ago
> I fully expect any reduction in costs for Apple will get sent to their shareholders, not the consumers. Apple's margins are consistent, if their costs go down significantly, pricing comes down or features increase. The iPad is a perfect example, for years it was $500 and they just kept increasing the feature-set until eventually they could deliver the base product for significantly less. Shareholders benefit from increased market share just as much as they do from increasing margins, arguably more. The base iPad and the iPhone SE both "cannibalize" their higher end products, but significantly expand their base. I wouldn't be surprised at all to see a $800 MacBook enter their lineup shipping with the same CPU as the iPad.
- mortenjorck 6y ago
  Considering they're selling a device with a 10.5" touchscreen and an A12 SoC for $500 today, I think they can go even lower than $800 for a device with only a slightly larger LCD and no digitizer. While they won't be competing with Chromebooks for general education use cases, I could very well see Apple trying to upsell schools on a $599 alternative that happens to run GarageBand, iMovie, and even XCode.
  - eugeniub 6y ago
    Eh I don't see Apple selling their cheapest education MacBook for $600 instead of $900 simply because one of many components suddenly got significantly cheaper.
    - Despegar 6y ago
      I can see them doing that for big volume buys for education. I don't see why they wouldn't just pass on the entire Intel margin to them, getting students using Apple products young has value.
      - sjwright 6y ago
        Chromebooks are doing well in education at the moment. If Apple launched a product in that space, they could easily claw half of that back overnight. The ability to run real software is huge, especially for subjects like graphic arts and engineering.
efficax 6y ago
undoubtedly, that’s capitalism! but they may also introduce some price cuts. These would probaby increase units sold, so they could better take advantage of their increased margin.
acrooks 6y ago
I'm actually not so sure about this. Apple's gross margin target is in the ballpark of 38-40% and a savings of $200-800 per MBP would have a substantial upwards impact on that gross margin number. Apple carefully sets pricing to achieve a target gross margin without impacting sales too much (higher price = higher gross margin but likely lower net revenue because they're priced out of the market). One of the two scenarios (or perhaps a mixture of both) are more likely, and I lean towards #1: 1. Apple decreases the price of the Mac to stay aligned with gross margin targets. This likely has a significant upwards impact on revenue, because a drop in price like this opens new markets who can now afford a Mac, increasing market share, driving new customers to their services, and adding a layer of lock-in for iPhone-but-not-Mac customers. 2. Apple uses the additional budget per device for more expensive parts/technology. They are struggling to incorporate technologies like OLED/mini-LED because of the significant cost of these displays and this would help open up those opportunities.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- mattigames 6y ago
  The high price of MacBooks is treated as a status symbol and the marketing department clearly knows as much, so I don't think they will be willing to give that up, so I lean towards your second option.
  - Twisell 6y ago
    How do you explain the iPhone SE then? Why not got the same road with an MacBook SE? I even think this will be the first product out the pipeline. MacPro buyers usually don't want to be beta testers and will probably be the last to transition out once horsepower is clearly there with mesurable gains.
    - onion2k 6y ago
      The iPhone SE is less a "cheap iPhone" and more "an expensive basic smartphone". Far more people upgrade to it from a low cost Android device then downgrade from a different iPhone.
ericmay 6y ago
Buy shares. That’s what I’m doing.
cletus 6y ago
Think of it this way: 1. This is risky for consumers. Whereas the PPC->x86 move was clearly a benefit to consumers given how PPC was lagging Intel at the time, x86 had proven performance and a massive install base. It was low risk to consumers. This? Less so. Sure iOS devices run on ARM but now you lose x86 compatibility. Consumers need to be "compensated" for this risk. This means lower prices and/or better performance, at least in the short-to-medium term; and 1. This move is a risk for Apple. They could lose market share doing this if consumers reject the transition. They wouldn't undertake it if the rewards didn't justify the risk. They will ultimately capture more profit from this I'm sure but because of (1) I think they may well subsidize this move in the short term with more performance per $. But I fully agree with an earlier comment here: Apple has a proven track record with chip shipments and schedules here so more vertically integrated laptop hardware is going to be a win, ultimately.
- ogre_codes 6y ago
  > This is risky for consumers. EXACTLY. If you are a photographer, a developer, a graphics designer, a musician, a teacher, or whatever, and you are looking at buying a new Mac, what is going to get you to buy the new Apple Silicon powered Mac which is almost certain to impact your workflow in some way? If you are making purchase decisions for classrooms, what makes you buy 200 Macs with a new, unknown architecture? The first generation of Macs on Apple silicon absolutely needs to have a significantly better price/ performance point versus the current generation or they won't sell to anything more than the most loyal fans. If the new Macs come out and pricing is not good, I could seriously see a sort-of anti-Osborne effect where people gravitate towards Intel based Macs (or away from Macs entirely) to avoid the risk of moving to new architecture. If anything, I expect margins on the first couple generations of Macs to go DOWN as margins on the first couple generations on all Apple products are lower (also public record).
  - insaneirish 6y ago
    > If you are making purchase decisions for classrooms, what makes you buy 200 Macs with a new, unknown architecture? Yes, the "unknown" architecture powering the highest performing phones and tablets. Apple has plenty of problems selling to schools for classroom use because other platforms have invested more in that use case. But ISA being the reason? No. Simply no.
jerkstate 6y ago
As a S&P500 owner, I am Ok with this.

Bingo. Estimates vary wildly, but I've seen figures saying that Axx CPUs cost Apple about $50 each. Even if it's more like $100, that's still an insane amount of additional profit per unit to be extracted. They don't need to deal with single-supplier hassles and they get much more control over what cores go into their SoC. This is sort-of-OK for consumers but amazing for Apple and its shareholers.

snemvalts 6y ago
Apple's services already make more money than their Mac business. There aren't enough macs sold for this to have a big impact
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  Even on the hardware side, they sell more than ten times as many iPhones as Macs.
jacurtis 6y ago
You could also argue that significant cuts to costs of already-profitable Mac computers, could lead to significantly higher sales volumes. Greater marketshare also provides more value to shareholders meaning that shareholders still win, as do consumers. More people with macs (and probably iPads/iPhones) would also increase other profit centers for Apple such as services (their highest profit center), warranties, and accessories. The profits and loyalty from these could easily far outweigh the $100-$300 of extra margin they might gain from keeping Mac prices the same. Meaning that price cuts to macs might actually be more strategically beneficial (to EVERYONE) than hoarding higher margins.
askafriend 6y ago
> amazing for Apple and its shareholers This only makes sense if you know nothing about Apple's business. You really think they're doing this to save $50 from ~5m Macs? You really think all this upheaval is for a mere $250m a year in savings? It'll cost them 10x that in pain alone to migrate to a new platform. Come on now....$250m is nothing at Apple scale. Think bigger. Even if you hate Apple, think bigger about their nefariousness (if your view is that they have bad intentions - one I don't agree with).
- alharith 6y ago
  It also only makes sense if you know nothing about economics in general. Lowering the price while maintaining existing margins just opens the door to more consumers available to purchase the product and overall increases shareholder value due to more sales.
- thefounder 6y ago
  I'm not sure how you calculated that but they sell about 20m macs per year not 5m. I also doubt the chips cost them 50$ per unit. The savings may worth few billions so it's not really like nothing. And they wouls save this every year. Will this change cost them 10x in pain alone? I doubt it. They already make the chips.
  - askafriend 6y ago
    > I'm not sure how you calculated that but they sell about 20m macs per year not 5m Quarterly numbers come in between 4.5-5m units these days but point taken - I recalled numbers for the wrong timeframe. > I also doubt the chips cost them 50$ per unit. The savings may worth few billions so it's not really like nothing. The true cost of this move is reflected in more than the R&D. This is a long multi-year effort involving several parties with competing interests. People are talking here as if they just flipped a switch to save costs. Let me make this clear. In my view, this is an offensive/strategic move to drive differentiation, not a defensive move to save costs (though if this works, that could be a big benefit down the road). Apple has a long history of these kinds of moves (that don't just involve chips). This is the same response I have to people peddling conspiracy theories that Apple loves making money off of selling dongles as a core strategy (dongles aren't the point, wireless is; focusing on dongles is missing the forest for the trees).
ogre_codes 6y ago
I suspect the big motivation for Apple is less about squeezing a few dollars more profit per system and more about shipping systems which just aren't possible on Intel's roadmap. Just putting the A12Z into the previous 12" MacBook would be a massively better computer with better battery life, better performance, and significantly less expensive. All while Apple maintains their margins. This isn't a zero sum game. Being able to ship less expensive computers which perform better is a win for consumers and Apple shareholders at the some time. The only loser here is Intel.
- zerkten 6y ago
  > Just putting the A12Z into the previous 12" MacBook would be a massively better computer with better battery life, better performance, and significantly less expensive. All while Apple maintains their margins. Don't we basically know that from the Surface X?
  - ogre_codes 6y ago
    > Don't we basically know that from the Surface X? Don't have to venture that far, we know it from the iPad Pro.
  - mlindner 6y ago
    Microsoft doesn't control the hardware very much and definitely doesn't control the software developers whereas Apple completely controls the former and has a lot of leverage with the latter.
- tonyedgecombe 6y ago
  You can see that with the latest MacBook Pro 13", if you buy one of the cheaper devices it comes with last years processors. Intel are clearly having problems meeting customer demand.
michaelmrose 6y ago
Cost of cpu is unit cost + all other costs including r and d divided by units. We also don't arrive at a reasonable estimate of unit costs by taking a range of estimates and picking the estimate most favorable to our position. I also don't believe it's reasonable to assume that switching to arm is as simple as putting an iPad cpu into a laptop shell. Here is an estimate that their 2018 model costs 72 just to make not to design and make. https://www.techinsights.com/blog/apple-iphone-xs-max-teardown https://www.techinsights.com/blog/apple-iphone-xs-max-teardo... The a14 that will power a MacBook is likely going to be more expensive not less. Especially with 15B transistors on the a14 vs less than 7B on a12. Average selling price of Intel cpu looks like around $126. This includes a lot of low end cpus which is exactly the kind of cpu apple fans like to compare. Apple may realize greater control and better battery life with the switch but they won't save a pile of money and thoughts about increasing performance are fanciful speculation that Apple, the people with the expertise are too smart to engage in.
- TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
  Indeed. Apple is going to have to eat R&D costs that were previously bundled in Intel's pricing. And Mac sales are relatively small compared to the Windows market, so economies of scale are going to be less significant. Which means the actual per-CPU fab cost is going to become a smaller part of the complete development and production cost of a run. And that total cost is the only one that matters. I expect savings can still be made, because Apple will stop contributing to Intel's profits. On the other hand I'm sure Apple was already buying CPUs at a sizeable discount. Either way it's an open question if Apple's margins are going to look much healthier. IMO an important motivation is low power/TDP for AR/VR. Ax will also eventually give Apple the option of a single unified development model, which will allow OS-specific optimisations and improvements inside the CPU/GPU. Ax has the potential to become MacOS/iOS/A(R)OS on a chip in a way that Intel CPUs never could.
72deluxe 6y ago
They’ll pass the savings onto the consumers though right?? I mean, a fully specced MacBook costs over £3000 which seems expensive... Here’s hoping anyway!!
- imtringued 6y ago
  Sure, they'll pass the $50 savings on. You are overestimating how much a CPU costs...
  - wooger 6y ago
    It's more than just a CPU though - this will make the components of a Mac massively similar to an iPad, and probably save money on many other components. It also removes any need for a dedicated GPU in their high-end laptops, which is probably $200 alone. I have no idea how they justify the prices for their lower end laptops as-is, as they have worse screen and performace than recent iPads in pretty much all cases.
m463 6y ago
But customers are going towards an entirely entirely closed everything. ios is apple languages, apple signature required to run code, apple processors. Desktop machines are the last bit of freedom in the apple ecosystem. This isn't "sort-of-ok", it's "bad-for-customers" and "bad-for-developers".
- nisten 6y ago
  This is just my opinion but I think it's great for consumers and a good restriction for developers. As a consumer you shouldn't be running unsigned software because you're putting not only your data at risk but any data you have access to. And as a developer on mac you can still run anything reasonably well in a VM. If you're using node, you should be running that in a virtualized environment in the first place, albeit I'm too lazy myself to always set that all up. Actually it's pretty amazing that now we'll be able to run an entire x86 OS environment on an ARM chip and get very usable performance too.
  - HeadsUpHigh 6y ago
    As someone on linux I've never run signed software ever in my life. Guess I've lost all my data and haven't even noticed!
    - m463 6y ago
      Linux signs its software.
      - HeadsUpHigh 6y ago
        I mean signed by Apple or any big corporation.
    - willtim 6y ago
      Are you sure? Packages are signed for most of the mainstream distributions.
  - dwaite 6y ago

ogre_codes 6y ago

> I fully expect any reduction in costs for Apple will get sent to their shareholders, not the consumers. Apple's margins are consistent, if their costs go down significantly, pricing comes down or features increase. The iPad is a perfect example, for years it was $500 and they just kept increasing the feature-set until eventually they could deliver the base product for significantly less. Shareholders benefit from increased market share just as much as they do from increasing margins, arguably more. The base iPad and the iPhone SE both "cannibalize" their higher end products, but significantly expand their base. I wouldn't be surprised at all to see a $800 MacBook enter their lineup shipping with the same CPU as the iPad.

mortenjorck 6y ago
Considering they're selling a device with a 10.5" touchscreen and an A12 SoC for $500 today, I think they can go even lower than $800 for a device with only a slightly larger LCD and no digitizer. While they won't be competing with Chromebooks for general education use cases, I could very well see Apple trying to upsell schools on a $599 alternative that happens to run GarageBand, iMovie, and even XCode.
- eugeniub 6y ago
  Eh I don't see Apple selling their cheapest education MacBook for $600 instead of $900 simply because one of many components suddenly got significantly cheaper.
  - Despegar 6y ago
    I can see them doing that for big volume buys for education. I don't see why they wouldn't just pass on the entire Intel margin to them, getting students using Apple products young has value.
    - sjwright 6y ago
      Chromebooks are doing well in education at the moment. If Apple launched a product in that space, they could easily claw half of that back overnight. The ability to run real software is huge, especially for subjects like graphic arts and engineering.

efficax 6y ago

undoubtedly, that’s capitalism! but they may also introduce some price cuts. These would probaby increase units sold, so they could better take advantage of their increased margin.

acrooks 6y ago

I'm actually not so sure about this. Apple's gross margin target is in the ballpark of 38-40% and a savings of $200-800 per MBP would have a substantial upwards impact on that gross margin number. Apple carefully sets pricing to achieve a target gross margin without impacting sales too much (higher price = higher gross margin but likely lower net revenue because they're priced out of the market). One of the two scenarios (or perhaps a mixture of both) are more likely, and I lean towards #1: 1. Apple decreases the price of the Mac to stay aligned with gross margin targets. This likely has a significant upwards impact on revenue, because a drop in price like this opens new markets who can now afford a Mac, increasing market share, driving new customers to their services, and adding a layer of lock-in for iPhone-but-not-Mac customers. 2. Apple uses the additional budget per device for more expensive parts/technology. They are struggling to incorporate technologies like OLED/mini-LED because of the significant cost of these displays and this would help open up those opportunities.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
mattigames 6y ago
The high price of MacBooks is treated as a status symbol and the marketing department clearly knows as much, so I don't think they will be willing to give that up, so I lean towards your second option.
- Twisell 6y ago
  How do you explain the iPhone SE then? Why not got the same road with an MacBook SE? I even think this will be the first product out the pipeline. MacPro buyers usually don't want to be beta testers and will probably be the last to transition out once horsepower is clearly there with mesurable gains.
  - onion2k 6y ago
    The iPhone SE is less a "cheap iPhone" and more "an expensive basic smartphone". Far more people upgrade to it from a low cost Android device then downgrade from a different iPhone.

ericmay 6y ago

Buy shares. That’s what I’m doing.

cletus 6y ago

Think of it this way: 1. This is risky for consumers. Whereas the PPC->x86 move was clearly a benefit to consumers given how PPC was lagging Intel at the time, x86 had proven performance and a massive install base. It was low risk to consumers. This? Less so. Sure iOS devices run on ARM but now you lose x86 compatibility. Consumers need to be "compensated" for this risk. This means lower prices and/or better performance, at least in the short-to-medium term; and 1. This move is a risk for Apple. They could lose market share doing this if consumers reject the transition. They wouldn't undertake it if the rewards didn't justify the risk. They will ultimately capture more profit from this I'm sure but because of (1) I think they may well subsidize this move in the short term with more performance per $. But I fully agree with an earlier comment here: Apple has a proven track record with chip shipments and schedules here so more vertically integrated laptop hardware is going to be a win, ultimately.

ogre_codes 6y ago
> This is risky for consumers. EXACTLY. If you are a photographer, a developer, a graphics designer, a musician, a teacher, or whatever, and you are looking at buying a new Mac, what is going to get you to buy the new Apple Silicon powered Mac which is almost certain to impact your workflow in some way? If you are making purchase decisions for classrooms, what makes you buy 200 Macs with a new, unknown architecture? The first generation of Macs on Apple silicon absolutely needs to have a significantly better price/ performance point versus the current generation or they won't sell to anything more than the most loyal fans. If the new Macs come out and pricing is not good, I could seriously see a sort-of anti-Osborne effect where people gravitate towards Intel based Macs (or away from Macs entirely) to avoid the risk of moving to new architecture. If anything, I expect margins on the first couple generations of Macs to go DOWN as margins on the first couple generations on all Apple products are lower (also public record).
- insaneirish 6y ago
  > If you are making purchase decisions for classrooms, what makes you buy 200 Macs with a new, unknown architecture? Yes, the "unknown" architecture powering the highest performing phones and tablets. Apple has plenty of problems selling to schools for classroom use because other platforms have invested more in that use case. But ISA being the reason? No. Simply no.

jerkstate 6y ago

As a S&P500 owner, I am Ok with this.