Forbes Article Doesn’t Seem To Think Apple’s ARM Will Be A Slam Dunk?

[NT1440]

Forbes and Bloomberg are different publications with different owners. Bloomberg published and has not retracted the chip story.

I don’t know how in the world I misread Bloomberg into this. Thank you.

 

[raknor]

But you are not "most people". Apple's Mac sales did not really take off until after the change to Intel CPUs. People saw they would run Windows on these Macs. That has now gone away. So maybe for every Apple enthusiast who would buy whatever Apple makes there is a person who needs to run some Windows apps.

This switch will work or not based on how the new Macs work.

I suspect they will work really well at the low end for simple tasks like email, Youtube, and web browsing which is 99% of what most people use the computer for.

One could argue that Mac sales started taking off after the iPhone took off since both happened within an year or two of each other.

Less than 10% of Mac users use some form of method to run windows apps on Macs (boot camp or virtualization) and that’s being generous. So your 1:1 ratio of Apple enthusiast to need to run windows apps on Mac is off by a factor of 10.

You also seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding or extreme bias against ARM with comments like it will only work really well for simple tasks.

 

[opeter]

Actually, the Mac sales did take off with the introduction of the boundi blue iMac in the late 90s.

Here is an interesting article:

iMac G3: The Macintosh That Saved Apple

On May 6, 1998, Steve Jobs took the stage and announced the iMac G3, a consumer counterpart to the G3-powered PowerMac and PowerBook, the only remaining computers in Apple’s lineup after he had slashed all other machines, including the popular Performa line. “The back of our computer,” he said...

512pixels.net

 

[JMacHack]

But you are not "most people". Apple's Mac sales did not really take off until after the change to Intel CPUs. People saw they would run Windows on these Macs. That has now gone away. So maybe for every Apple enthusiast who would buy whatever Apple makes there is a person who needs to run some Windows apps.

This switch will work or not based on how the new Macs work.

You're looking at the switch in a vacuum, Apple's switch to Intel wasn't the only factor in the rise in sales of Macs at that time. You must also consider Apple's explosive popularity with the iPod (and later iPhone) getting their name in every young potential computer buyer's mind, and at the time Windows was shipping Vista (which wouldn't be fixed until 2009, by which point the name was so tainted they changed it to 7) making a lot of people frustrated with Windows in general.

No doubt there were/are many people who bought a Mac because it could also run Windows, making the switch ads more attractive. But that hasn't been the strategy for selling the Mac since before Steve died. (they quit running the ads in 2009!)

I suspect they will work really well at the low end for simple tasks like email, Youtube, and web browsing which is 99% of what most people use the computer for.

I highly doubt Apple would promise to switch their whole lineup if the new processors could only do low-end tasks.

 

[MisterMe]

But you are not "most people". Apple's Mac sales did not really take off until after the change to Intel CPUs. People saw they would run Windows on these Macs. That has now gone away. So maybe for every Apple enthusiast who would buy whatever Apple makes there is a person who needs to run some Windows apps.

This switch will work or not based on how the new Macs work.

I suspect they will work really well at the low end for simple tasks like email, Youtube, and web browsing which is 99% of what most people use the computer for.

I'm have to call "nonsense" on this. I purchased my first Power Mac, a Power Macintosh 9500/132, back in 1995. I purchased a optional copy of SoftWindows 3 that Apple shipped in the same box. It seemed like a good idea at the time. I could show my friends that I could run Windows 3.1 on my Mac. However, I was a Mac owner. SoftWindows and the ability to run Windows on my Mac was a curiosity--not a mission-critical function. Cut to 2004. I purchased my second Power Mac, a 2.0 GHz Power Mac G5. I purchased Virtual PC for my Power Mac. It seemed like a good idea at the time. I could show my friends the I could run Windows 98 on my Mac. However, I was a Mac owner. Virtual PC and the ability to run Windows on my Mac was a curiosity--not a mission-critical function.

Today, much of the enterprise software that used to require Windows on the desktop is now server-based and runs in a browser window. Software that absolutely must be run on Windows can be run on a virtual server in the cloud. I find myself in that situation. Amazon Web Services and Microsoft Remote Desktop are there for me.

We all have our use cases. However, of the Mac users I know, I am the only one who has a job that requires that he or she run Windows on anything.