3 ms·

These are the exact same arguments folks made and probably still make with the original iPhone release. A decade later, Apple is one of the most valuable compan

These are the exact same arguments folks made and probably still make with the original iPhone release. A decade later, Apple is one of the most valuable companies, no one profits from mobile business more than they do and their phones are clearly the best premium phones (the majority of its competition is from the budget category). The way it's similar is that you yourself make a clear case in the number of ways apple's new silicon is actually groundbreaking but then you really are trying to concoct it in a way to find a flaw. The only real problem that you point out here, which also exists with the iPhone, is the anticompetitive and customisable nature of the future Apple is creating. Someone taking a stand on that in principle is commendable though questionable practically. Ignoring that for a moment, it is not really up to argument except by biased "old timers" that this is truly amazing work in chip and software design. It's not like no one else wants or cares about any of these metrics, it's that no one has been able to get their sh*t together in a way that Apple has. Which is interesting because just a few years back MacBooks became a very bad choice for anyone for a number of hardware issues (outrageous keyboard, finicky motherboards, etc). So this is a very interesting 180 indeed.

blablabla123 6y ago
> These are the exact same arguments folks made and probably still make with the original iPhone release. So true. The iPhone was by far not the first smartphone but it appeared with optimal timing as it was possible to create something really polished while still having enough features. Also now low energy is a trend and having a fast laptop with passive cooling is just surreal. The MacBooks seem inferior in many ways but if you compare just the fact sheets, they are just more close to what a mobile user needs. (Battery life, generally solid components, low weight, it just works - and if not you can go to the next Apple store) Intel definitely went a few times in the wrong direction with Itanium and also all the CPU bugs (although ARM had them as well). But I'm sure they'll come up with something new if needed, this wouldn't be the first time
webmobdev 6y ago
> These are the exact same arguments folks made and probably still make with the original iPhone release. Lol. Your comment reminded me of another sarcastic comment I came across on this topic, on Slashdot (https://m.slashdot.org/story/379156#comments https://m.slashdot.org/story/379156#comments) > I've been seeing these articles for years. Oh no, Apple has made AirPods, who will buy anyone else's wireless earbuds now?. Oh no,Apple has created iPadOS, who will buy a PC laptop now?. Oh no, Apple made the trash can Mac with AMD "server" cards for so cheap, who will buy a PC workstation now?. Oh no, Apple made the iPad, who will buy a normal laptop now?. Oh no, Apple has made the iPhone, who will buy any other smartphone now?. And that's the point you are missing. Nobody denies that the Apple processor is a technological innovation. But like the iPhone, it is definitely an innovation limited to the APPLE ECOSYSTEM. The new Apple processor will definitely make them more profit as it will attract more consumers. But it will neither kill Qualcomm or Nvidia or Intel or AMD. And whether you like it or not, Intel and AMD processors biggest advantage is the softwares they can run on it. And that's a huge advantage over Apple Processor that can only run the highly controlled and closed macOS BigSur where an application Firewall isn't even allowed to block Apple apps because Apple doesn't want you to.
- ramraj07 6y ago
  Partly true, except you forget the sad story of companies such as Nokia, or Creative labs, or HTC, or even Motorola, that barely exist if at all, after Apple decimated their business model. Already, the PC laptop market is getting pummeled on both sides by Macs and Chromebooks, this will only accelerate that - no one with full conscience can recommend a PC laptop to a regular user anymore - go with a cheap chromebook or get an air at $1000. Furthermore, the biggest casualty here is probably going to be Intel: graviton and M1 clearly show ARM is the future, so someone on the PC side is going to step up and create the M1 competition. It's probably not going to be as good but comparable, but it'll go circles around x86 again. This will then accelerate the transformation of more and more software to ARM compatibility and intel will probably play a similar song to Nokia or IBM and play a sad slow tune of death while it's only customers would be lazy monoliths sticking to their old server architectures.
  - webmobdev 6y ago
    > no one with full conscience can recommend a PC laptop to a regular user anymore - go with a cheap chromebook or get an air at $1000. Absolutely no. Nobody with a conscience should recommend closed systems with less and less options for us consumers. The biggest advantage that AMD and Intel have over ARM is the software support they have and that means more freedom and choice for us than any similar ARM system. I've said it before - I bought an Intel Mac only because it gave me the option to not be trapped in Apple's clutches. And I certainly won't buy an Apple computer anymore unless I know for sure that it doesn't restricting my computing freedom anymore. (But there is no indication to that as Big Sur shows, Apple has tightened its control on macOS by preventing application firewalls from blocking Apple apps - an indication of how it further moves to turn macOS to a closed system like the ios.) And it is precisely for this reason that I don't see Intel or AMD dying out anytime soon.

blablabla123 6y ago

> These are the exact same arguments folks made and probably still make with the original iPhone release. So true. The iPhone was by far not the first smartphone but it appeared with optimal timing as it was possible to create something really polished while still having enough features. Also now low energy is a trend and having a fast laptop with passive cooling is just surreal. The MacBooks seem inferior in many ways but if you compare just the fact sheets, they are just more close to what a mobile user needs. (Battery life, generally solid components, low weight, it just works - and if not you can go to the next Apple store) Intel definitely went a few times in the wrong direction with Itanium and also all the CPU bugs (although ARM had them as well). But I'm sure they'll come up with something new if needed, this wouldn't be the first time

webmobdev 6y ago

> These are the exact same arguments folks made and probably still make with the original iPhone release. Lol. Your comment reminded me of another sarcastic comment I came across on this topic, on Slashdot (https://m.slashdot.org/story/379156#comments https://m.slashdot.org/story/379156#comments) > I've been seeing these articles for years. Oh no, Apple has made AirPods, who will buy anyone else's wireless earbuds now?. Oh no,Apple has created iPadOS, who will buy a PC laptop now?. Oh no, Apple made the trash can Mac with AMD "server" cards for so cheap, who will buy a PC workstation now?. Oh no, Apple made the iPad, who will buy a normal laptop now?. Oh no, Apple has made the iPhone, who will buy any other smartphone now?. And that's the point you are missing. Nobody denies that the Apple processor is a technological innovation. But like the iPhone, it is definitely an innovation limited to the APPLE ECOSYSTEM. The new Apple processor will definitely make them more profit as it will attract more consumers. But it will neither kill Qualcomm or Nvidia or Intel or AMD. And whether you like it or not, Intel and AMD processors biggest advantage is the softwares they can run on it. And that's a huge advantage over Apple Processor that can only run the highly controlled and closed macOS BigSur where an application Firewall isn't even allowed to block Apple apps because Apple doesn't want you to.

ramraj07 6y ago
Partly true, except you forget the sad story of companies such as Nokia, or Creative labs, or HTC, or even Motorola, that barely exist if at all, after Apple decimated their business model. Already, the PC laptop market is getting pummeled on both sides by Macs and Chromebooks, this will only accelerate that - no one with full conscience can recommend a PC laptop to a regular user anymore - go with a cheap chromebook or get an air at $1000. Furthermore, the biggest casualty here is probably going to be Intel: graviton and M1 clearly show ARM is the future, so someone on the PC side is going to step up and create the M1 competition. It's probably not going to be as good but comparable, but it'll go circles around x86 again. This will then accelerate the transformation of more and more software to ARM compatibility and intel will probably play a similar song to Nokia or IBM and play a sad slow tune of death while it's only customers would be lazy monoliths sticking to their old server architectures.
- webmobdev 6y ago
  > no one with full conscience can recommend a PC laptop to a regular user anymore - go with a cheap chromebook or get an air at $1000. Absolutely no. Nobody with a conscience should recommend closed systems with less and less options for us consumers. The biggest advantage that AMD and Intel have over ARM is the software support they have and that means more freedom and choice for us than any similar ARM system. I've said it before - I bought an Intel Mac only because it gave me the option to not be trapped in Apple's clutches. And I certainly won't buy an Apple computer anymore unless I know for sure that it doesn't restricting my computing freedom anymore. (But there is no indication to that as Big Sur shows, Apple has tightened its control on macOS by preventing application firewalls from blocking Apple apps - an indication of how it further moves to turn macOS to a closed system like the ios.) And it is precisely for this reason that I don't see Intel or AMD dying out anytime soon.