If anything, they're upgrading faster than ever. This thread makes no sense.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Silicon is Overpriced and over valued in technology market
- Thread starter trevpimp
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Well, no one might read this, but I’d say it seems Apple and TSMC are responsible for keeping Moore’s Law alive. Overpriced? Cutting-edge tech can be expensive. That’s why I’m happy Apple gives me cutting-edge tech that lasts longer than my PC laptops and others’ more affordable phones.
I was going to respond to OP, but actually I can't understand what they're saying.
Obviously, Apple was simply gouging when the first base model m1 Mini was priced $100 less than the previous Intel base model.
And here we have the first argument backed up by a fact. That’s how you do it.
I will even come to say that we are proud of the current line up of Apple products, we are more than pleased with what's on the table which is great
I am under speculation that is all,
Any comments on the way we feel about Apple upgrades because of Silicon? At least for right now
I am under speculation that is all,
Any comments on the way we feel about Apple upgrades because of Silicon? At least for right now
-_- <— first impression seeing the OP.
Seriously, what’s wrong with all the fuss and the claim that M1 is “overpriced”? For people that can utilise the full hardware (not just CPU), M1 runs around the corner against Intel and AMD for years or even decades. X86 has gone so complex and so inefficient in certain areas, performance improvement has become substantially harder as a result. For example, I have a very hard time finding a use of MS-DOS support on alder lake processors. There are emulators for that. (On M1 btw)
Also, even for people who just buy a $1000 computer browsing the web, M1 is still an amazing machine for its performance overhead and efficiency. I am 90% sure there’s NO windows laptop that can achieve both the performance and battery life of M1 MacBook Air at $1000 price point. Yes, my M1 experience is quite underwhelming, but its still much faster than my old 11” MacBook Air.
Seriously, what’s wrong with all the fuss and the claim that M1 is “overpriced”? For people that can utilise the full hardware (not just CPU), M1 runs around the corner against Intel and AMD for years or even decades. X86 has gone so complex and so inefficient in certain areas, performance improvement has become substantially harder as a result. For example, I have a very hard time finding a use of MS-DOS support on alder lake processors. There are emulators for that. (On M1 btw)
Also, even for people who just buy a $1000 computer browsing the web, M1 is still an amazing machine for its performance overhead and efficiency. I am 90% sure there’s NO windows laptop that can achieve both the performance and battery life of M1 MacBook Air at $1000 price point. Yes, my M1 experience is quite underwhelming, but its still much faster than my old 11” MacBook Air.
counterpart
(kaʊntərpɑrt
)Word forms: counterparts
COUNTABLE NOUN
Someone's or something's counterpart is another person or thing that has a similar function or position in a different place.
Sourced by https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/counterpart
I think what the OP is trying to say is something along the lines of:
"If one thinks about how widely available Apple products are and how mainstream they've become, and how little year-over-year upgrades to performance are now compared to the past, that makes me feel like Apple Silicon is making Apple devices be more expensive than they need to be, because we should be getting higher year-over-year jumps in performance. And worse, because Apple already leap-frogged Intel and others, they can't catch up, which is slowing down how fast Apple needs to go in terms of improving Apple Silicon."
Purely an opinion post and not a fact-based point like they make it seem, but the OP could have done a much better job at communicating their points, clearly. Especially because a lot of it is just untrue, for example, how they say that it will take many years to see an upgrade. I could have made that point about Intel in the 2010s, and Apple is definitely going faster than them. So I definitely disagree that the industry is slowing down.
"If one thinks about how widely available Apple products are and how mainstream they've become, and how little year-over-year upgrades to performance are now compared to the past, that makes me feel like Apple Silicon is making Apple devices be more expensive than they need to be, because we should be getting higher year-over-year jumps in performance. And worse, because Apple already leap-frogged Intel and others, they can't catch up, which is slowing down how fast Apple needs to go in terms of improving Apple Silicon."
Purely an opinion post and not a fact-based point like they make it seem, but the OP could have done a much better job at communicating their points, clearly. Especially because a lot of it is just untrue, for example, how they say that it will take many years to see an upgrade. I could have made that point about Intel in the 2010s, and Apple is definitely going faster than them. So I definitely disagree that the industry is slowing down.
T
I give you props on your English, so enough you get an lol, lol
Again, I am talking about Silicon being so ahead of the game, the current market is being slowed down, Apple can add an Stylus, A Dual Mirror Display, And a self recharging battery in iPhones at a much earlier time but because the current market it will make no sense for any of us to have any of those features only because Silicon and ARM is way ahead of the future, same goes for any other product with an SoC
I am interested in the way we feel because for me I can't wait till Apple comes out of the curtains with the next big thing,
I am anticipating the next big thing, going on several years
I give you props on your English, so enough you get an lol, lol
Again, I am talking about Silicon being so ahead of the game, the current market is being slowed down, Apple can add an Stylus, A Dual Mirror Display, And a self recharging battery in iPhones at a much earlier time but because the current market it will make no sense for any of us to have any of those features only because Silicon and ARM is way ahead of the future, same goes for any other product with an SoC
I am interested in the way we feel because for me I can't wait till Apple comes out of the curtains with the next big thing,
I am anticipating the next big thing, going on several years
So are you saying apple is being slow with introducing new *features* because Apple Silicon is so far ahead of the competition Apple doesn’t need to innovate in anything except the SOC? I mean, that’s an intelligible argument, so an improvement on what you’ve posted earlier, but I think the main reason Apple hasn’t introduced a stylus/touchscreen Mac is because they think touchscreens don’t work in a laptop form factor or with the macOS UI. And you can use an iPad in sidecar mode if you really want to interact via stylus or touch.
I don’t know what a ‘mirror display’ is.
I *do* think Apple is coming out with new features and most of them relate to interoperability of their devices - sidecar, universal control, the iPhone webcam thing that’s coming in Ventura, etc. So I really don’t think there’s much to the premise of your point if I’ve understood it. If the rate of new features has slowed I suspect that’s more due to the pandemic and WFH than Apple smugly testing on their Apple Silicon laurels. They know the competition is racing to catch up.
I don’t know what a ‘mirror display’ is.
I *do* think Apple is coming out with new features and most of them relate to interoperability of their devices - sidecar, universal control, the iPhone webcam thing that’s coming in Ventura, etc. So I really don’t think there’s much to the premise of your point if I’ve understood it. If the rate of new features has slowed I suspect that’s more due to the pandemic and WFH than Apple smugly testing on their Apple Silicon laurels. They know the competition is racing to catch up.
What drives innovation could realistically be all sort of things. Believe it or not but Apple's foundation is way ahead of the current line up of products. They have plans and ideas beyond any depth we can think of that's what happens when you are high foundation. Go Apple
All we can be given are minor upgrades for years and years on end because Apple silicon is in demand at a much higher rate than we can ask for, excluding innovation we are lacking we can do much more when innovation is in demand but we so called can not because Silicon and especially Arm is way ahead of the game, market wise
Last edited:
M1 Macbook Air started at the SAME $999 as the former Intel i5 even with inflation
So stop trolling or if you are not start reading economics
There is plenty of things where Apple is borderline crook[1] but their in house cpu is definitely not the one.
Apple silicon is under-priced compared to the competition.
Apple save a lot of money by using the same cpu for their tablet, laptop, mac mini, imac, etc.
Economies of scale and vertical integration is a huge benefit to that. I am not engineer but I have read articles saying the design is actually quite expensive compared to the competition. They can negotiate the best deals with TSMC to make their cpu and get the latest node before anyone else for a year or two. AMD also use TSMC but is way smaller, they cannot negotiate the same deals.
That is why macbook air or mac mini are so cheap compared to an amd laptop.
[1]The storage and ram upgrades at outrageous prices. Repair fees. App store monopoly with all the obligatory fees for the devs. Silly accessories that self destruct, the list could go on..
Apple silicon is under-priced compared to the competition.
Apple save a lot of money by using the same cpu for their tablet, laptop, mac mini, imac, etc.
Economies of scale and vertical integration is a huge benefit to that. I am not engineer but I have read articles saying the design is actually quite expensive compared to the competition. They can negotiate the best deals with TSMC to make their cpu and get the latest node before anyone else for a year or two. AMD also use TSMC but is way smaller, they cannot negotiate the same deals.
That is why macbook air or mac mini are so cheap compared to an amd laptop.
[1]The storage and ram upgrades at outrageous prices. Repair fees. App store monopoly with all the obligatory fees for the devs. Silly accessories that self destruct, the list could go on..
Apple Silicon has spoiled me so much that I will never go back to a laptop with a fan or gets less than 10 honest hours of battery life.
Not only that, but it's forced Intel and AMD to step up their games. They are both approaching it differently. Intel, the high school quarterback-minded company that it is, decided to up their game by throwing more energy consumption and cores at their mobile chips to beat Apple Silicon in benchmarks but not real world performance. AMD has conducted a strategy by focusing on a middle ground between beating Apple Silicon in performance ever so slightly, but doing so simultaneously with steps towards energy efficiency.
I believe a lot of people feel you are wrong, Intel and AMD included.
Not only that, but it's forced Intel and AMD to step up their games. They are both approaching it differently. Intel, the high school quarterback-minded company that it is, decided to up their game by throwing more energy consumption and cores at their mobile chips to beat Apple Silicon in benchmarks but not real world performance. AMD has conducted a strategy by focusing on a middle ground between beating Apple Silicon in performance ever so slightly, but doing so simultaneously with steps towards energy efficiency.
I believe a lot of people feel you are wrong, Intel and AMD included.
What you're effectively saying is Apple has made such a huge jump ahead it's hard for them to outdo themselves in the short-term. This is a funny thing to be complaining about in all fairness!
counterpart
(kaʊntərpɑrt
Word forms: counterparts
COUNTABLE NOUN
Someone's or something's counterpart is another person or thing that has a similar function or position in a different place.
Sourced by https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/counterpart
Yes, I know the word's meaning and I included a link to a definition to the word in my post. But you seem to use the same word to describe very different things, which makes it difficult for me to understand your posts.
Like in this post: "Market value doesn't change in the previous counter part of products and for the amount of excess upgrades year after year it is measurable to say that the counterparts being put into Apple products are overpriced hence reasons why value barely changes and over value has slowed down progress"
Huh? So "counterparts" refers both to non-Apple products AND to items that are "put into" Apple products? In the same sentence?
Likewise, I don't see that "technology is overpriced because of SOC," or that "the technology market is slowing down." Both are factual statements so if you have some examples to back them up, please share them so we can see your point.
These forums are far from dying, they’re extremely active. It would be wholly unnecessary.
I had to read this several times. I read the whole thread and do not agree that hardware being leaps and bounds above software would cause software stagnation.
My first computer that I used as a kid was Windows 95 with a 200MB partition. Yes, I had no space to do anything but the computer was not mine. As the Pentium processors advanced, software took advantage of available hardware. Over the last decade, graphics cards have really taken off and software has advanced because of that (digital $, mass computing projects, crazy good graphics, etc).
While we have somewhat plateaued the needs of the CPU, we've found that just increasing the Ghz clock doesn't give us the gains we notice, especially today - instead, we increase the throughput for more parallel processes at once. IMO, the Operating System from Windows 95 to Now is not all that different. So running a Pentium 4 vs a modern chip today isn't going to see a lot of difference for most operations.
This is just my opinion but hardware drives software. Increasing hardware will result in software being written to take advantage of it. CPUs have not had much of a growth over the last decade imo. Apple's M CPU is amazing and the biggest jump I've ever seen in my lifetime in computing power.
On my M1 Max - I can do Parallels with a Windows 11 Arm compiling a Visual Studio project while running GB memory applications that deal with massive Oracle databases, seamlessly run 2-3 browsers opened with 20-30 tabs each, dozens of apps opened, streaming a Teams meeting sharing my screen, and according to Activity Monitor - I'm using 20% of my CPU. All this without an audible CPU fan. My i7 MacBook would scream max case fans just booting Windows 11 up not to mention doing anything in Visual Studio or the Chrome browsers.
Software can now be written to take advantage of this power.
In all my years of using computers - the power of the M1 continues to blow me away. Do I think this is stagnating software? No. Is it overpriced? No. (My opinion of course).
This "big leap" happened because Apple jumped from two generations old Intel CPUs to their own CPUs. Current Intel and AMD CPUs are faster than Apple processors. So much for a leap. And iif you consider the combined power of CPU and GPU in modern PCs, Macs are even farther behind.
If you really need performance, you don’t use a laptop. And you definitely can tolerate the fan noise. If all you need is a web browser, the options are limitless (including Samsung Dex on Galaxy phone).
Current flagship desktop CPUs from AMD and Intel are faster than Apple's chips, but just barely and at the cost of massively increased thermal load and peak power consumption. I'd call that a leap, no matter how you slice it.
Also at the time of the M1's release, the top-of-the-line 27" Intel iMac with an Intel i7-10700K managed a solid 1250 single-core score in GeekBench. With the M1, the base model Air was offering ~1700 single-core in a fanless package that delivered all-day battery life. They were only released a few months apart, and that's still a bigger single-core gain than the top-range 2020 i7 iMac offers over my Late 2013 iMac, released over 7 years prior.