I'm not in favor of ARM chips because I still use VM x86 OSs. I can see tho the rise of ARM as Apples non dependence on Intel and it maybe a couple of years,
Apple isn't solely dependent upon Intel now. Apple could pull an AMD x86 into any system without anywhere near the amount of addition overhead (costs in both money and even more limited resource of personnel ) of going back to a dual binary deployment set up. Yes that AMD would have to get a bit better (to get to stage can win design bake-off) and Intel would have a stumble a bit, but it isn't the mono vendor solution that the ARM fanboy rhetoric makes it out to be.
Both the 68K-> PPC and PPC -> x86 transitions only happened after the
whole Mac line up could be flipped in a relatively short amount of time. Going to a pragmatically semi-permanent split makes zero sense. It primarily only buys additional complexity.
Apple is dependent upon outside parts suppliers period. The hand waving about outside risks in ARM being completely blunted is rather odd when staring at the iPad mini 3 with "last years" SoC. Being ARM didn't magically make a newer part available. If Apple dumps half the Mac line to ARM how are they not dependent upon Intel/AMD? Especially if it is solely the upper have which is even more heavily dominated by Intel offerings.
but it will happen not only because ARM is getting very powerful but the cost of it compared to Intel chips is so cheap
Not really. Right now Intel is pragmatically giving a whole range of them away for almost free. Even if willing to throw performance out, Intel can limbo much lower without loosing as much performance several years back.
If CPU package cost is Apple's main problem then can shift to 1/3-1/4 the price already
http://www.cpu-world.com/news_2014/...s_Core_i5_i7_and_N-Series_mobile_lineups.html
$225-623 Core i solutions versus $107-161 N-series solution.
When the "Cherry Trail" comes out on this same new process tech that Core i 5th generation ( Broadwell) solutions are now rolling out on it will be even easier to offer "no speed increase, just cheaper" systems.
When Intel had regulated Atom to second tier design teams and 2-3 generations back process tech, there was a much bigger gap for ARM to drive up into. That gap is rapidly closing. It isn't the chasm it once one.
Apple pricing increments by $100's so $100 CPUs versus $40 CPUs probably isn't going to drive a huge swing in overall Mac system pricing. $30-60 component parts swings are exactly the kinds of swings that Apple simply just pockets as higher margins (or at best maybe bigger software bundle). Apple has about zero interest in driving its margins down into the same zone as Dell/HP/Lenovo and smaller vendors with OS X sized sales volumes.
and the efficiency and power saving is so great for laptops plus the walled in garden effect for guarding their OS.
Apple has a many multi Billion $ walled garden. It is called iOS. If Apple wanted to sell $200-300 boxes an Apple TV would be a far more effective walled garden than a OS X system.
The mini is plugged in so while "fanless" is probably something Apple would go after .... lowest possible power really isn't buying a whole lot.
Apple's 30% skim off the Mac App Store means they don't have to get into a "race to the bottom" chase to increase revenues and profits. They are simiply taking a higher share of revenue from the systems they already sell. Just growing the more profitable system sub-market will give low term grow without having to drag in maximum number of new system owners.
Time will tell but Halle Berry would not be may first choice for an invitation to dinner.
All of the "If I was Steve/CEO " or "If I was Tim/CEO " stuff isn't likely going to give insight into what Steve or Tim is going to do.
