This isn't the Power PC era anymore. That was 20+ years ago and new people are in charge of Apple now. Jeez, it's like people are digging Apple Silicon's grave before it even gets out of the gate.
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.
If M2 Macs get shown at WWDC, when can we buy them?
- Thread starter m0nkeyb0y
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The Mac has been outside the competitive marketplace for a long time. That's why the Mac continues to grow, why the PC industry on the whole declines.
Troll post. People turnover all the time. It's nothing new. Apple's 15 years track record of making Apple Silicon is more impressive than anything else that has happened in the entire PC industry during that time. This is undeniable. All Intel can do is try to make better chips to run Windows now. The best chips Intel can make still are going to have god awful Windows as the only mainstream OS to access to them.
The Mac stands alone, more today than ever. It has no competition. No one is choosing between Windows and Mac. They each have defined customer bases and use cases.
What exactly are you trying to achieve here? Save the unwashed masses from the Mac?
If so, don't you think there would be better forums to spend your time on?
Kind of the case for all Apple products now. For a very long time, the trendy thing to do to drum up website traffic was to write outlandish hit pieces on Gizmodo or some other rag about their products, their business model, their marketing, their leadership, etc. You still see a good amount of that now, but it's not the same, and I don't think nearly as obnoxious. Now instead of "Tim Cook doesn't know how to run Apple!" or "The iPad is dying!" you get stupid YouTube titles like, "The iPhone 13 is a ripoff!" or "Don't make a mistake and buy the wrong iPad!" only to find out it was all just to get you to click.
I think even more so than the Mac, it's APPLE that stands alone. Yes, their products can be prohibitively expensive in some cases, but in others, they're quite accessible by almost anyone. Nerds can complain and argue all they want, but Apple's actual customers just keep going back to Apple because they trust them and love the products.
Try telling that to the tens or hundreds of thousands of software developers who depend upon the x64/x86 ecosystem for their livelihoods, in particular 3D, graphics, data science and games designers who've invested much into their platforms. And before you start calling me a troll I'll let you know I was one of those people who actually owned tons of Macs before the Intel era anything from G4 Cubes to Powerbooks - the PowerMac G4 being my favourite. I had at least 5 of those deployed in my office for various tasks.
What I'm trying to say is...there was a time when after Apple transitioned to Intel, the PC world suddenly felt a little more inclusive. You could run Linux/Windows from a single Macbook or write code for a game on an Nvidia or AMD equipped iMac or Mac Pro. Everything could and was done from one place - a Mac, and you could cater to two or more platforms - a win win for all. Now you have to lug around two separate laptops or have two separate desktop systems and are forced to choose between programming for either Apple M1 or for PC. It's not very efficient, not fun and certainly not good for the planet (especially if you are also an eco-warrior that Apple always says they are). Not to mention there is still yet, after nearly 2 years - no full Linux support for the M1 nor eGPU support for macOS. Did I also forget M1 Macs are now also not PC gaming friendly? So you can't run code for say games on Steam/GOG that was designed for x64 PCs (which are some of the biggest sellers). That's a loss of income for many games designers for example (as well as for Apple on hardware/software). So I'm not exactly sure what Apple is trying to achieve here (other than upsetting a whole bunch of people).
Apple does. When talking about the CPU capabilities of their M1 chip, who does Apple use as a comparator? That's right, it's Intel.
@staypuftforums was right—Apple doesn't operate in a competitive vacuum. Even die-hard Apple users like myself, who are pretty much wedded to the system because we find it's far nicer to use MacOS than Windows, still don't want to see Apple fall behind the rest of the industry in performance.
Furthermore, don't you think Apple would like to increase its market share? Of course they would. And what's the main way to do that? Yup, it's to convert Windows users. And they don't have to be nerds to be made reluctant to convert over if Apple has a reputation for poor performance.
That's why it's a BFD that, with the M1 Air, Apple is able to, for the first time that I can recall, offer a laptop that actually gives more performance for the money than a PC laptop, rather than less (historically you pay more for Apple in spite of reduced performance in order to get the better OS). So it's important that Apple maintain this lead with future generations of AS.
It is quite obvious what Apple are trying to achieve - namely to build a better laptop/computer to run MacOS. With the first iteration in the M1 family they have been wildly successful gaining market share and revenue which they haven't done while sticking with Intel. The use cases you have mentioned would upset some users but from the success they've had so far, the advantages have outweighed some disgruntled users who cannot run bootcamp or their favourite game in Windows on a mac.
Of course, Apple shouldn't be complacent - if in future Intel or AMD comes out with a CPU that has higher performance/watt or significantly higher performance then some of the stated aims of moving will not be valid anymore.
"No one is choosing between Windows and Mac". Of course they are. Children old enough for their parents to let them select the OS of their next computer are choosing between Windows, Mac, Linux, Chromebook, Raspberry Pi, and others. And they'll probably re-evaluate their choice with their next purchase, as well as if and when they buy a computer for college.
When I got my PhD, I myself had to choose between Mac, Linux, and Windows for my research. I chose Mac over Windows because I needed a native Unix interface for programming, and Mac over Linux because I liked the Mac's more sophisticated GUI.
In addition, if a small business gets big enough to have an IT dept (or at least an IT person) and decides to be an all-Windows or an all-Mac shop, they're choosing between Windows and Mac.
I agree with everything you've said, but it's pretty clear why Apple chose to abandon Intel. Intel had become a bad fit for Apple for two reasons. First, Apple focuses on the mobile market, and Intel's high TDP's have made it impossible for Apple to produce performant laptops that meet their design goals of being thin, light, and quiet, and having long battery life. Second, Intel's delays have made it difficult for Apple to meet their own release schedule.
Apple also gains economic benefits from this, and the added vertical integration gives them much more control over their product.
Apple wants efficient, quiet laptops that don't thermal throttle. M1 gives them that, and consumers are happy. The chip scales well for pro workloads, so they can use variations of one chip across the entire line.
The use cases you described are a niche. Simply put, in the world of software dev they're already a tiny part of the overall landscape (most devs only code professionally on one platform, and cross-platform tools allow for most people to choose Windows, macOS or Linux).
When it comes to the overall user base, most people care more about reliable hardware and software than the option to run multiple OSes. 2016-2019 Macs were not reliable, and part of that was thanks to Intel's stagnation.
we still code in imac 2017 instead of m1 own . Most reason easier to work with remote team which only own intel . It is not m1 not good , but we bought laptop a lot before and scare broken keyboard , so only used macbook for travel and sometimes backup only.
intel much reliable more on my work , m1 yes it fast open xcode and android but something not right when people use to large screen . Designer whom used to 27 will kinda odd movin to 24 . So basically to change mind a bit slow . Dont forget in early stage ram is limited to 16 gb which a lot of people uhmm aa till new chip come out.
People work in office doesnt care per watt problem but per how much output can deliver as fast as possible. Per watt only work good in data center or mobile platform.
I don't get what screens have to do with chips, unless you're referring to M1 only being capable of driving one display. For professionals, you would expect the company to supply them with at least M1 Pros if they need multiple displays anyway.
Again, this is only a limitation of the base chip. Pros can do 32, Maxes can go to 64, Ultra 128. You should buy what your job requires.
And the answer is obvious: the M1 family delivers more output on any Mac.
Or you know, a laptop which many users own.
I've been thinking about this a lot--specifically the M1 starting to propagate out beyond the Mac and into the iPad. It feels like the same strategy they adopted in OSX. (Yes, I realize M1 is standing on the shoulders of giants and was derived from the extensive A series work Apple has been doing for years.)
I recently watched a bunch of old OSX Steve Jobs presentations recently, and one thing he really hammered on during that launch and in the release of future hardware was that macOS would be the superset of all other software in the ecosystem. It was designed to be able to pick and choose what you need for whatever device you wanted to build.
M1 isn't quite the same thing because silicon development is a completely different beast, but still, it's kind of a reverse OSX. It's being designed to scale to the rest of the hardware lineup. I wouldn't be surprised to eventually see M chips in iPhone, Apple TV, and HomePod as well.
I wouldn't either, but I doubt it. A-series chips are more efficient with their power draw, and with a small battery on a phone this is crucial.
iPads and Macs have fewer restrictions due to their size and use cases. Many professionals also use an iPad for their work, and having a M chip helps albeit a tad overkill due to OS limitations.
Rosetta won’t be around forever. Some people would be forced out of macs if the use x86 software or more importantly plugins. People who work for a living don’t pick sides. In fact while macs were Intel I felt they were actually “meh”. I loved the build quality, but when a $2,000 custom built PC performs better than my $5,000 iMac yeah that’s crazy. Now it’s the opposite. My $2,000 custom built PC with a GPU upgrade recently cannot compete with my $4,000 16” MacBook Pro. I have deadlines. While they aren’t very strict, I don’t like pushing things to the limits. So whatever computer helps me work faster, I use. If Intel catches up and Apple takes 3 years between processor upgrades, it won’t look good.
Apple ditched Intel saying to their customers “we can do better”. Hopefully they do. The need to at least speak about M2 soon even if products won’t be ready by the fall. It tells me as a customer that Apple is not staying still while Intel is improving. And yes I have used a test 12900k and it’s catching up to the Mac.
So bottom line. Apple dropped Intel meaning we are on limited support for the entirety of x86. We lost boot camp. It’s a big change with a promise from Apple that they can do better than Intel. So far the M1 Ultra is immensely disappointing.
I feel it's just a matter of marketing anyway. The M chips came from the A chips--they are cut from the same basic cloth, at least on a high level. So maybe the M chip really IS the chip superset, just like macOS is the software superset, for all Apple hardware.
Crazy watching this all evolve in real time. A few years ago I was wondering if/when the iPad Pro and iPadOS would finally leap frog the Mac and become the de facto productivity platform. What I really should have been wondering is when the Mac would get an iPad caliber processor so that macOS can finally run the way it should.
Exactly. All of this "what if Intel catches up and M1 lags behind" is not a worry for many people. For casuals, as long as it works it's fine. I also trust Apple to be committed to the platform after many bad years.
As for professionals, I can only do my work on a Mac as an iOS dev. Other creative professionals use FCP or some tool that only works on a Mac. There are many cross-platform tools nowadays but that means nothing if you don't like the alternatives, or there are none.
Those users don't care about what Intel is doing, as a Windows computer is completely out of the question.
I sometimes use my son's Windows 10 computer when he needs help with something and I just can't believe I ever liked that OS in general. I guess Windows 10 looks a little nicer, but my goodness, what a mess it's become.
Also--I think many have lost sight of just how much of a screamer the base M1 chip is. The Pro, Max, and Ultra are so mind blowing, that they now consider the vanilla M1 "slow". It most certainly is not.
Sorry that’s just not true. I can use Premiere Pro on Mac or windows. Right now, macs are saving me 2.5-3 hours of my video editing but if Windows PCs change that, I’ll go back. I have 7 computers in my workflow mix of Windows Mac and Linux.
I’m not employed by my clients as a “mac user” I’m employed as a “video editor”. Whatever system gets me more clients by letting me work faster, I use. This is why I used a $2,000 windows PC up until the M1 came out because it was cheaper and faster than the Mac.
It is true if you're a FCP user. There is no Final Cut on Windows.
Not every video editor uses Premiere.
I use all three. Davinci Resolve, FCP, and Premiere. Right now, FCP optimizes my workflow and saves me time. But if Intel blows passed Apple Silicon and Premiere on Windows speeds up my workflow, I’ll switch.
In fact I still use premiere on my longer videos and the M1. * macs have made premiere better than on windows. FCP doesn’t like OBS videos but premiere does. I use OBS for my lectures and gaming videos. For my clients currently I have a pure FCP workflow. But can move to others if needed or they help me work faster.
Not sure why the last line was needed. Some people do use premiere. Some people are fluid with what operating system they use.
Last edited: