The thrill of Apple silicon is already gone

[sam_dean]

Did it? I use a command line shell every day.

You're not a consumer. 99% of typical macOS users are purely GUI.

It helps avoid most accidents.

I saw this article about Gen Z claiming that schools are not training them the skills necessary to survive the digital world.

Replies were observations that younger people only know how to use GUIs only whether it be a laptop, smartphone or tablet.

It puts me in a retrospect. If I was a parent odds are I'd give them a hand me down Macbook Pro and iPhone after I used it for 2 years and 1 year respectively and have them use it for 4 years and 2 years respectively.

I had experience with DOS prior to Windows 95. So I am somewhat familiar with the Command Line Interface. I moved to the Mac in 2000 but still dabbled with Windows.

What is worrying is that most computer/phone users are just users. They do not know how to troubleshoot software errors or correct any hardware failures.

 

[JouniS]

You're not a consumer. 99% of typical macOS users are purely GUI.

Claims like this remind me of a story from the 1950s. Back then, the US Air Force discovered that cockpits designed for the average pilot were bad for everyone. It turned out that the average pilot did not exist. Everyone was outside the typical range on at least some relevant body measurements.

By the same reasoning, I would be wary of claims that average users are common. When you have enough variables, most people tend to be exceptional on at least some of them.

 

[sam_dean]

Claims like this remind me of a story from the 1950s. Back then, the US Air Force discovered that cockpits designed for the average pilot were bad for everyone. It turned out that the average pilot did not exist. Everyone was outside the typical range on at least some relevant body measurements.

By the same reasoning, I would be wary of claims that average users are common. When you have enough variables, most people tend to be exceptional on at least some of them.

If I am not mistaken back then the US military had height, weight, body fat % and other metrics for recruits.

So the layout of say a aircraft's cockpit would be somewhat uniform for that physicality.

Going back to Macs/iPad/etc. The CLI's pretty much hidden below so many folders that only people actually looking for it would actually find it.

To address the contrarians in the room I will resize it to over 80% instead of 99% to make us both right.

 

[eltoslightfoot]

If I am not mistaken back then the US military had height, weight, body fat % and other metrics for recruits.

So the layout of say a aircraft's cockpit would be somewhat uniform for that physicality.

Going back to Macs/iPad/etc. The CLI's pretty much hidden below so many folders that only people actually looking for it would actually find it.

To address the contrarians in the room I will resize it to over 80% instead of 99% to make us both right.

I bet the number is actually lower than that 80%. There are a lot of us that came over to Mac OS X from Windows as it was a Linux/UNIX under the hood with a much better "front end" than either of those.

I loved that it was like a Redhat Linux that actually worked LOL. Just used the CLI to set up an Alfred command to switch between wifi networks. Oh and I installed homebrew. Oh and....

 

[sam_dean]

I bet the number is actually lower than that 80%. There are a lot of us that came over to Mac OS X from Windows as it was a Linux/UNIX under the hood with a much better "front end" than either of those.

I loved that it was like a Redhat Linux that actually worked LOL. Just used the CLI to set up an Alfred command to switch between wifi networks. Oh and I installed homebrew. Oh and....

Fellas I am speaking of the 29 million Macs shipped in 2021 with corresponding users.

Not just app developers or sys admins.

 

[Gudi]

Did it? I use a command line shell every day.

The vast majority of computers don't even have a shell. And on most of the other ones, it's never even used once. A tiny fraction of users use the command line occasionally. And then there are a few people, who think they and their special needs are representative of what everybody wants form a computer.

 

[jdb8167]

And then there are a few people, who think they and their special needs are representative of what everybody wants form a computer.

We call them software developers. There may be more of them than you think.

 

[XboxEvolved]

I still think despite a lot of the excitement gone away, the Apple Silicon chips are one of the best innovations that Apple has made since Tim Cook became CEO and I believe that it is the beginning of the whole industry going that way.

I am surprised that Apple still sells anything Intel, and I don't know if maybe covid could be partially blamed for this, but I remember when Apple transitioned from PowerPC to Intel, Steve Jobs said it would take them like 18 months and I think they were able to pull it off within 9 or something like that. It also is concerning about how good (or bad) the graphics hardware has been, but I think it's pretty respectable for their laptops. I think a lot of these problems can be addressed by simply allowing eGPU or making partnerships with AMD to have an optional GPU chip in higher-end Macs, along with their own GPU hardware within the SoC.

 

[maflynn]

I am surprised that Apple still sells anything Intel, and I don't know if maybe covid could be partially blamed for this

I think there are technical issues related to producing a mac pro level computer. The current mac pro offers a number of features not typically found in Macs, i.e., expandability. The architecture of the M1/M2 as its currently designed does not allow any expandability, so the question is what is a Mac Pro in the new world order.

 

[Curry119]

This won't be a popular opinion here but I think the Apple Silicon is going to decline in the coming years vs the AMD and even probably the Intel offerings. They came out the gate with a big leap vs the older Intel chips they were carrying in the Macs at the time but I have serious doubts they will keep that lead compared with current chips in the future. The M chips migration is all about recycling the investments they made on the phone side so that they can maximize their profits and get more lock-in. The fact nothing is upgradable anymore and you need to pay Apple's fee for RAM and storage is an added benefit for Tim Apple. Currently they have admittedly hit a sweet spot for performance but Apple has a history of lagging behind over the long run which is why they previously moved to Intel from PowerPC.

 

[sam_dean]

This won't be a popular opinion here but I think the Apple Silicon is going to decline in the coming years vs the AMD and even probably the Intel offerings. They came out the gate with a big leap vs the older Intel chips they were carrying in the Macs at the time but I have serious doubts they will keep that lead compared with current chips in the future. The M chips migration is all about recycling the investments they made on the phone side so that they can maximize their profits and get more lock-in. The fact nothing is upgradable anymore and you need to pay Apple's fee for RAM and storage is an added benefit for Tim Apple. Currently they have admittedly hit a sweet spot for performance but Apple has a history of lagging behind over the long run which is why they previously moved to Intel from PowerPC.

I think what you say will occur if by some miracle iPhone sales tank so badly that Apple cannot pay for leading edge die shrinks.

A challenge of AMD/Intel/industry is that their chip design need to cater to a general audience. Apple does not have that constraint. It is purpose built solely for Apple's software.

In terms of units sold Apple loses in that regard for all price points

But for price points $999 & higher laptops and $599 & higher desktops they probably are the #1 brand for that segment of the market.

 

[Dismayed]

This won't be a popular opinion here but I think the Apple Silicon is going to decline in the coming years vs the AMD and even probably the Intel offerings. They came out the gate with a big leap vs the older Intel chips they were carrying in the Macs at the time but I have serious doubts they will keep that lead compared with current chips in the future. The M chips migration is all about recycling the investments they made on the phone side so that they can maximize their profits and get more lock-in. The fact nothing is upgradable anymore and you need to pay Apple's fee for RAM and storage is an added benefit for Tim Apple. Currently they have admittedly hit a sweet spot for performance but Apple has a history of lagging behind over the long run which is why they previously moved to Intel from PowerPC.

The markets seem to believe otherwise. Apple's market cap is over 10x that of AMD.

 

[eltoslightfoot]

What's hilarious about this is it won't really matter. People are choosing Mac based on the software and integration. Conversely, people are choosing Windows for the versatility and software also. Everyone is choosing based off software and OS needs anyway.

Admittedly it was nice that the M1 processor was better pound-for-pound than Intel and AMD, but it is hardly necessary.

Also, they haven't beaten it yet, so we will see.

 

[Curry119]

The markets seem to believe otherwise. Apple's market cap is over 10x that of AMD.

Market Cap or Share =/= CPU Performance

 

[Gudi]

We call them software developers. There may be more of them than you think.

Like car engineers among all drivers, they are a rare breed. And most of them live in an IDE (integrated development environment) like Xcode. If you want to build a mac-like app, the command line won't be helpful.

 

[retta283]

I am surprised that Apple still sells anything Intel, and I don't know if maybe covid could be partially blamed for this, but I remember when Apple transitioned from PowerPC to Intel, Steve Jobs said it would take them like 18 months and I think they were able to pull it off within 9 or something like that.

As far as I'm aware, Apple actually has failed to meet its transition timeline with Apple silicon. I recall it being either 18 months or 2 years. Mac Pro is still completely up in the air with no end in sight for the Intel model. Whether they have run into issues or not, I'm somewhat surprised they haven't just pulled the Intel model from offer for the time being, maybe they are just sitting on enough parts for demand that they are safe to keep it up.

 

[NT1440]

As far as I'm aware, Apple actually has failed to meet its transition timeline with Apple silicon. I recall it being either 18 months or 2 years. Mac Pro is still completely up in the air with no end in sight for the Intel model. Whether they have run into issues or not, I'm somewhat surprised they haven't just pulled the Intel model from offer for the time being, maybe they are just sitting on enough parts for demand that they are safe to keep it up.

It was “about two years” then Covid hit, and TMSC slipped their 3nm timeline.

It’s really that simple, despite the gnashing of teeth on this forum.

 

[eltoslightfoot]

As far as I'm aware, Apple actually has failed to meet its transition timeline with Apple silicon. I recall it being either 18 months or 2 years. Mac Pro is still completely up in the air with no end in sight for the Intel model. Whether they have run into issues or not, I'm somewhat surprised they haven't just pulled the Intel model from offer for the time being, maybe they are just sitting on enough parts for demand that they are safe to keep it up.

I think it's more what @maflynn said. I would add on to that basically they made the M1 so good that the low end is really way above the middle of where performance would be. So now they are stuck trying to figure out how to make something pro level with the M1/2 line. They are probably trying to figure out how to make a new trash can equivalent. Either way, it doesn't really matter to most people. The M1/2 is so powerful for 99.9% of their customer base it is fine.

 

[jdb8167]

If you want to build a mac-like app, the command line won't be helpful.

Is that your expert opinion? LOL

 

[retta283]

It was “about two years” then Covid hit, and TMSC slipped their 3nm timeline.

It’s really that simple, despite the gnashing of teeth on this forum.

The two-year timetable was announced in the midst of Covid at WWDC 20. Not to disregard the effects it had, but perhaps they should've just given no timetable in public given the situation of the time.

It is of course completely irrelevant regardless and was only mentioned as a tidbit, I do agree that especially the Mac Pro is a difficult platform to transition, same with what @eltoslightfoot is getting at.

 

[eltoslightfoot]

The two-year timetable was announced in the midst of Covid at WWDC 20. Not to disregard the effects it had, but perhaps they should've just given no timetable in public given the situation of the time.

It is of course completely irrelevant regardless and was only mentioned as a tidbit, I do agree that especially the Mac Pro is a difficult platform to transition, same with what @eltoslightfoot is getting at.

To add to this, the architecture with Intel was already there. They have entire server chip lines (Intel Xeon) with associated code. That is not easy to recreate. It's not surprising it is problematic and taking longer than 2 years.

 

[PauloSera]

I don't think you realize how big of a deal Metal 3 is.

I heard that about the switch to Intel and Metal and Metal 2 and the switch to Apple Silicon.

None of these things changed gaming. Metal 3 won't either.

 

[bradl]

This won't be a popular opinion here but I think the Apple Silicon is going to decline in the coming years vs the AMD and even probably the Intel offerings. They came out the gate with a big leap vs the older Intel chips they were carrying in the Macs at the time but I have serious doubts they will keep that lead compared with current chips in the future. The M chips migration is all about recycling the investments they made on the phone side so that they can maximize their profits and get more lock-in. The fact nothing is upgradable anymore and you need to pay Apple's fee for RAM and storage is an added benefit for Tim Apple. Currently they have admittedly hit a sweet spot for performance but Apple has a history of lagging behind over the long run which is why they previously moved to Intel from PowerPC.

Yet the biggest thing you are missing here is LONGEVITY. If a person is wanting more power and more space, then every year to two years they are upgrading all the time. That's what happened during the Intel vs. Cyrix vs. AMD Days with the Pentium II, K6 II, and early Athlon and Duron CPUs, and memory. You'd be spending a huge amount of money for the short term drug-like energy fix, while giving off the false sense of belief that more is better.

My mid-2011 13" MBA still screams fast for the speeds it offers, and it is going strong for 11 years without a single bit of maintenance to it. No replacement of battery, board, the entire lot. If I compared that to how much money I put into my PC that I've rebuilt 4 times since then and now, the MBA would still come out on top for stability, longevity, and overall cost per month. Doing the math, that MBA is costing me $11.56/month and is still going strong. I bought it at $1595 in 2011 ( 1595 / (12 months * 11.5 years) ).

Compare that to the PC I built, which is Ryzen 5, 32GB, 4 SSDs and a M.2, closed loop water cooling, I'm looking at around $1000 every other year, and that is including keeping the M.2 and 4 SSDs, the case, and the video card. That's $5000 in 120 months.

If my M1 Pro gives me the same outlook, and should give more than that, I should be on this for much longer than the 11.5 years I've had my MBA; besides, I'd be paying less in 10 years time than I would be for upgrading the PC for that short term fix.

As a sysadmin, I'm not worried about the fix, as stability and staying rock solid is the main concern (and that's coming from someone who manages two data centers at Intel); as a consumer, I sure as hell am not worried about the fix, because I want my Mac to stay working as long as it can, solidly and stably, without the need for the instant gratification of the fix. And most consumers want that; to only have to buy something once and not have to worry about speed or needing to upgrade. That's what brought them to Macs; not needing to get caught in the 2-year upgrade cycle.

BL.

 

[Curry119]

Yet the biggest thing you are missing here is LONGEVITY. If a person is wanting more power and more space, then every year to two years they are upgrading all the time. That's what happened during the Intel vs. Cyrix vs. AMD Days with the Pentium II, K6 II, and early Athlon and Duron CPUs, and memory. You'd be spending a huge amount of money for the short term drug-like energy fix, while giving off the false sense of belief that more is better.

My mid-2011 13" MBA still screams fast for the speeds it offers, and it is going strong for 11 years without a single bit of maintenance to it. No replacement of battery, board, the entire lot. If I compared that to how much money I put into my PC that I've rebuilt 4 times since then and now, the MBA would still come out on top for stability, longevity, and overall cost per month. Doing the math, that MBA is costing me $11.56/month and is still going strong. I bought it at $1595 in 2011 ( 1595 / (12 months * 11.5 years) ).

Compare that to the PC I built, which is Ryzen 5, 32GB, 4 SSDs and a M.2, closed loop water cooling, I'm looking at around $1000 every other year, and that is including keeping the M.2 and 4 SSDs, the case, and the video card. That's $5000 in 120 months.

If my M1 Pro gives me the same outlook, and should give more than that, I should be on this for much longer than the 11.5 years I've had my MBA; besides, I'd be paying less in 10 years time than I would be for upgrading the PC for that short term fix.

As a sysadmin, I'm not worried about the fix, as stability and staying rock solid is the main concern (and that's coming from someone who manages two data centers at Intel); as a consumer, I sure as hell am not worried about the fix, because I want my Mac to stay working as long as it can, solidly and stably, without the need for the instant gratification of the fix. And most consumers want that; to only have to buy something once and not have to worry about speed or needing to upgrade. That's what brought them to Macs; not needing to get caught in the 2-year upgrade cycle.

BL.

I like Macs as much as anyone here. I'm still using a 2018 MacBook Air base model. Are you seriously suggesting it's common to spend over 1k on a PC every 1-2 years? I have a custom built PC that I spent about $1500 on 7 years ago and it still runs every PC game/MMO that I throw at it. It doesn't support Windows 11 but otherwise it still runs like I built it yesterday. People buy a Mac for all different reasons, mostly to run Mac OS but I disagree that longevity is an advantage when the new Mac desktops cannot even be upgraded with RAM/Storage anymore.

 

[Sydde]

To add to this, the architecture with Intel was already there. They have entire server chip lines (Intel Xeon) with associated code. That is not easy to recreate. It's not surprising it is problematic and taking longer than 2 years.

What does this even mean? I am having difficulty trying to make sense of it.