5 ms·

> which doesn’t bode well for Intel once Apple releases its “Apple Silicon” Macbooks. How so? Apple's market share is something like 10% so it's a minority of

> which doesn’t bode well for Intel once Apple releases its “Apple Silicon” Macbooks. How so? Apple's market share is something like 10% so it's a minority of Intel's market.

fiddlerwoaroof 6y ago
Apple is a trendsetter, though: I think, as a rule, Apple’s decisions are copied by a large part of the market so its market share isn’t an adequate measurement of its influence. This will be especially true if Apple Silicon MacBooks are impressive in some way, like extra-long battery life.
- the-dude 6y ago
  Will manufacturers start to demand Windows on ARM? ( WARM? )
  - vesh 6y ago
    Absolutely, better performance per watt means longer battery life. Windows already supports ARM. Microsoft doesn't really have a choice here but to improve support for ARM. Office on Mac seems like is going to be ready for Apple Silicon if that effort also helps Office on Windows ARM then they are half way there.
  - brian_herman 6y ago
    https://community.arm.com/developer/ip-products/processors/b/processors-ip-blog/posts/third-generation-of-windows-on-arm https://community.arm.com/developer/ip-products/processors/b... They are making some. I hope bootcamp will be updated for the new macbooks eventually. I don't expect it to be out on day 1 but maybe a couple months after release?
  - wmf 6y ago
    Windows on ARM only runs on lame processors like 8cx/SQ1/SQ2. Apple Silicon may beat Intel/AMD and Apple Silicon is ARM, but that doesn't mean that ARM is beating Intel/AMD.
  - solarkraft 6y ago
    Yes. Microsoft is happy to oblige and Qualcomm seems to be ramping up their Snapdragon 8cx program, with it in a few recently released devices.
rubyn00bie 6y ago
Because Apple is going to prove TSMC is capable of building x86 destroying processors. Not in theory. Not academic or institutional one offs... no, it’ll be mass-produced and in the hands of consumers. Intel’s failure to get their fabs running has put them into a death spiral unless they pull off a miracle. Also, if Apples ARM chips are really that fast they will be purchased by the shipload to be sent to performance critical operations like HFT. They will be put into servers or turned into them to squeeze and eek out every possible advantage... which will shit on intels most profitable lines (Xeons for single threaded workloads). It’s gonna be a crazy time.
- aurizon 6y ago
  Apple has a similarly onerous history of monopoly action - watch what you wish for, you may get it.
  - sosborn 6y ago
    The situation is a bit different though. If Apple's plan was to produce processors for the likes of HP, Dell, etc, then maybe that would be an issue. But I highly doubt they will move into those markets. It's AMD that's poised to take over that space.
- thu2111 6y ago
  Apple haven't ever been really interested in or committed to non-consumer markets.
  - pram 6y ago
    “Haven’t ever” is simply not true. Apple has had plenty of historical server products, including dedicated rack servers with the Xserve line. That’s not to say it’s likely but it’s not unprecedented ;P
    - thu2111 6y ago
      And they scrapped them. That's exactly my point. They were not committed: they made an uncompetitive product for a few years and bailed instead of trying harder. Compare to the Mac.
spideymans 6y ago
Beyond what others have mentioned, we also mustn’t discount the possibility that Apple Silicon could be a strategic move to lower device MSRP, thus increasing market share and Apple services revenue. People will instinctively write off this idea, but this is the new pricing strategy Apple has been employing with the $329 entry level iPad, $399 iPhone SE, and the new $279 Apple Watch SE. The Macintosh now remains Apple’s only major consumer product line that hasn’t seen aggressive price reductions to make Apple services accessible to a broader range of consumers. The move to Apple Silicon, which could save Apple potentially hundreds of dollars per device, is the perfect time to move the Mac to this pricing strategy. If this happens, it would absolutely eat into Intel’s consumer market share.
- wmf 6y ago
  Eh, every chip company has lower-end models that are cheaper. There's nothing stopping Apple from putting i3s in Macs.
  - solarkraft 6y ago
    With low-end branding and possibly sub-par performance.
  - mulmen 6y ago
    But what if Apple offers a Macbook with i7 performance and i3 price?
    - The_Colonel 6y ago
      Typical Apple - undercutting other companies on price \s
      - thekyle 6y ago
        I know you're joking, but looking at some Geekbench scores there doesn't seem to be a single Android phone on the market that can outperform the iPhone SE in single-core performance. The OnePlus 8 is the closest, but still not really that close. iPhone SE: 1321 OnePlus 8: 898 On multi-core it's a little better since there seem to be seven Android phones that can outperform the iPhone SE: iPhone SE: 2737 OnePlus 8: 3281 OnePlus 8 Pro: 3216 Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra 5G: 3107 Samsung Galaxy S20+ 5G: 3102 Samsung Galaxy S20 5G: 3078 Huawei Mate 30 Pro 5G: 2918 Huawei Mate 30 Pro: 2835 However, all of those Android phones cost quite a bit more than the SE. https://browser.geekbench.com/ios-benchmarks https://browser.geekbench.com/ios-benchmarks https://browser.geekbench.com/android-benchmarks https://browser.geekbench.com/android-benchmarks

> which doesn’t bode well for Intel once Apple releases its “Apple Silicon” Macbooks. How so? Apple's market share is something like 10% so it's a minority of Intel's market.

fiddlerwoaroof 6y ago

Apple is a trendsetter, though: I think, as a rule, Apple’s decisions are copied by a large part of the market so its market share isn’t an adequate measurement of its influence. This will be especially true if Apple Silicon MacBooks are impressive in some way, like extra-long battery life.

the-dude 6y ago
Will manufacturers start to demand Windows on ARM? ( WARM? )
- vesh 6y ago
  Absolutely, better performance per watt means longer battery life. Windows already supports ARM. Microsoft doesn't really have a choice here but to improve support for ARM. Office on Mac seems like is going to be ready for Apple Silicon if that effort also helps Office on Windows ARM then they are half way there.
- brian_herman 6y ago
  https://community.arm.com/developer/ip-products/processors/b/processors-ip-blog/posts/third-generation-of-windows-on-arm https://community.arm.com/developer/ip-products/processors/b... They are making some. I hope bootcamp will be updated for the new macbooks eventually. I don't expect it to be out on day 1 but maybe a couple months after release?
- wmf 6y ago
  Windows on ARM only runs on lame processors like 8cx/SQ1/SQ2. Apple Silicon may beat Intel/AMD and Apple Silicon is ARM, but that doesn't mean that ARM is beating Intel/AMD.
- solarkraft 6y ago
  Yes. Microsoft is happy to oblige and Qualcomm seems to be ramping up their Snapdragon 8cx program, with it in a few recently released devices.

rubyn00bie 6y ago

Because Apple is going to prove TSMC is capable of building x86 destroying processors. Not in theory. Not academic or institutional one offs... no, it’ll be mass-produced and in the hands of consumers. Intel’s failure to get their fabs running has put them into a death spiral unless they pull off a miracle. Also, if Apples ARM chips are really that fast they will be purchased by the shipload to be sent to performance critical operations like HFT. They will be put into servers or turned into them to squeeze and eek out every possible advantage... which will shit on intels most profitable lines (Xeons for single threaded workloads). It’s gonna be a crazy time.

aurizon 6y ago
Apple has a similarly onerous history of monopoly action - watch what you wish for, you may get it.
- sosborn 6y ago
  The situation is a bit different though. If Apple's plan was to produce processors for the likes of HP, Dell, etc, then maybe that would be an issue. But I highly doubt they will move into those markets. It's AMD that's poised to take over that space.
thu2111 6y ago
Apple haven't ever been really interested in or committed to non-consumer markets.
- pram 6y ago
  “Haven’t ever” is simply not true. Apple has had plenty of historical server products, including dedicated rack servers with the Xserve line. That’s not to say it’s likely but it’s not unprecedented ;P
  - thu2111 6y ago
    And they scrapped them. That's exactly my point. They were not committed: they made an uncompetitive product for a few years and bailed instead of trying harder. Compare to the Mac.

spideymans 6y ago

Beyond what others have mentioned, we also mustn’t discount the possibility that Apple Silicon could be a strategic move to lower device MSRP, thus increasing market share and Apple services revenue. People will instinctively write off this idea, but this is the new pricing strategy Apple has been employing with the $329 entry level iPad, $399 iPhone SE, and the new $279 Apple Watch SE. The Macintosh now remains Apple’s only major consumer product line that hasn’t seen aggressive price reductions to make Apple services accessible to a broader range of consumers. The move to Apple Silicon, which could save Apple potentially hundreds of dollars per device, is the perfect time to move the Mac to this pricing strategy. If this happens, it would absolutely eat into Intel’s consumer market share.

wmf 6y ago
Eh, every chip company has lower-end models that are cheaper. There's nothing stopping Apple from putting i3s in Macs.
- solarkraft 6y ago
  With low-end branding and possibly sub-par performance.
- mulmen 6y ago
  But what if Apple offers a Macbook with i7 performance and i3 price?
  - The_Colonel 6y ago
    Typical Apple - undercutting other companies on price \s
    - thekyle 6y ago
      I know you're joking, but looking at some Geekbench scores there doesn't seem to be a single Android phone on the market that can outperform the iPhone SE in single-core performance. The OnePlus 8 is the closest, but still not really that close. iPhone SE: 1321 OnePlus 8: 898 On multi-core it's a little better since there seem to be seven Android phones that can outperform the iPhone SE: iPhone SE: 2737 OnePlus 8: 3281 OnePlus 8 Pro: 3216 Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra 5G: 3107 Samsung Galaxy S20+ 5G: 3102 Samsung Galaxy S20 5G: 3078 Huawei Mate 30 Pro 5G: 2918 Huawei Mate 30 Pro: 2835 However, all of those Android phones cost quite a bit more than the SE. https://browser.geekbench.com/ios-benchmarks https://browser.geekbench.com/ios-benchmarks https://browser.geekbench.com/android-benchmarks https://browser.geekbench.com/android-benchmarks