I'm just telling you in the 90s, and 2000s who made up most of Apple market share WHEN Apple was struggling to stay in business and what kept Apple afloat.
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.
Why does Apple not bring out desktop CPU?
- Thread starter Bubble99
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'm just telling you in the 90s, and 2000s who made up most of Apple market share WHEN Apple was struggling to stay in business and what kept Apple afloat.
This whole conversation is so weird … the Ultra exists. Apple may not feel the necessity to update every generation as @Chuckeee mentioned their focus is laptops but it still exists and that’s Apple’s product for that segment. Do you want the fabled Extreme? Sure that would be nice and depending on the capabilities there is market for it but @Bubble99 you’re arguments are vague (moar power but for which workloads?) and your evidence is weak (laughably bad website with outdated benchmarks). Be specific, as @Apple_Robert asked. And then try to use actually relevant benchmarks.
There is a case to be made for an Apple Silicon desktop chip but you aren’t making it and you’re ignoring everything people are telling you.
Again that’s what the Ultra is for …
Laptops and desktops are two different classes. Desktops are dying breed. Intel can play desktop game. Apple laptops can keep making money. Ultra can take care of the niche.
So Apple is not making hardware for businesses and people who work in the industries who value time over money and need high in work stations and high in desktops computers that cost 5,000 to 10,000 or more.
But in the 90s and 2000s when company was almost bankruptcy they did that.
I remember the 90s and 2000s you get funny looks from people buying Apple computer when every thing was all PCs.
Because if I'm using Mathematica interactively, and waiting x seconds for it to complete each operation, I don't care about how much time it would take on a PC, I care about how much time it's taking me on my Mac. Thus if I'm using a Mac laptop, and thinking of buying a Mac desktop, it's reasonable to wish the desktop took advantage of the fact that it is a desktop and offered a faster SC clock.
I'm saying Intel should have broken the company into two camps one for desktop computers and other for laptops and mobile devices.
Honestly I have no idea what you're telling me, because what you wrote there is just word salad. By writing this way, you're asking your readers to do the work to translate your words into something comprehensible. That's your job, not theirs.
I'm saying before Apple became really poplar and the average public started buying Mac like for school work, Apple was more seen in the work place and industries among people in the creative and art places and like music production, graphics and video editing this was niche that kept Apple afloat before iPod, iPhone and iPad that exponential shot up Apple market share and than Microsoft started alienating windows users.
But when you were responding to my post you said Macs are not intended for scientific use. That's simply not true. If they are not intended for scientific use, how do you explain that, when Jobs introduced the PPC processor, he did so by showing its performance in Mathematica? And if they are not intended for scientific use, how do you explain that they continue to use scientific benchmarks in their marketing materials to illustrrate their performance?
Macs use in science was spotting in the 90s and 2000s but creative people and art people almost always had Mac.
That's not answering my question. The fact is that the statement you made -- that Macs aren't intended for scientific use -- is incorrect, but you're throwing up smokescreens to avoid admitting you go it wrong. Macs have a history with scientists that goes back just as far as with creatives. When I was at NIH in the 80's, lots of scientists were using Macs. My entire group used Macs. And Macs' popularity among scientists has continued consistently since then, up through today.
Are you a member of the scientific community? From what you've wrote, I don't think you are, since if you were you'd know better. So why insist on taking a postion on something about which you have so little direct knowledge?
Is the % of Mac use higher among creatives than scientists? Possibly. Is the % of Mac market share that goes to creatives higher than to scientists? Certainly.
But it is incorrect to conclude from this that creatives = Mac and scientists = PCs.
Last edited:
I’m saying scientific computing was always hit and miss with having Mac unlike creative people and art people who almost always had one, I hardly doubt thay have market share like the creative people and art people unless Microsoft is really alienating its user base in other sectors with windows 10 and 11 now.
That’s intels problem, something Apple should stay away. Am glad made switch from Intel to Apple silicon.
Intel’s biggest problem is shift of computing from CPU to GPU. It’s just the beginning, it will take a big hit in not just consumer but data center markets.
Apple is still prevalent in those professions? And makes products for them … and is far better in software support than they were pre-transition. So again be specific, what product do you want to Apple to make? What exactly do you think Apple is behind in? Because it ain’t in raw CPU performance by any sensible metric.
Look I actually think there’s an untapped market, for an Extreme and/or larger Ultra for the GPU/NPU/CPU in that order (especially with the AI boom and especially if Apple is set to become its own best customer for server chips as is the rumor). But I have to agree with @theorist9 that you’re throwing out word salads and unsupported assertions with nothing else to engage with. So I’m out.
Looking at my new Lenovos, let alone my older P620's (maybe even pitting the first-gen 3995WX against an Ultra if I still had one might have been a valiant fight), I'm gonna have to call BS to quite a large degree on that one chief
But even for the kind of MacOS use they get in the context they're in, if they're going to specifically make a Pro for Pros then they could definitely do with upping the Ultraness a bit - if only to actually make certain " " fans " " wishful thinking true.
🤔
we were talking desktops, weren't we?
Last edited:
So tell me if you professional or making Hollywood movie or in music industry and have deadline when it has to be out you going to do video editing or music production on a laptop? When time cost you money. When it cost you money for the computer to process it. And you not going to go with fastest CPU out there?
Plenty of professional musicians record, edit, and mix on laptops. I've worked with professional recording houses that ran everything off a Mac Pro, back when Mac Pros were not the fastest options around. The time constraints here are not with the final export and the difference between an Ultra and a top of the line Intel or AMD chip would make very little difference.
For video, it's a little different, but these are largely GPU-bound tasks where the CPU (above a basic threshold) does not make that much difference. Also, if you're a Hollywood studio, you're likely using a server or render farm rather than a desktop machine.
As others have pointed out, Apple does make a desktop chip. It's called the Ultra. If you want it, buy it. They'll happily sell you as many Ultra-equipped machines as you like. If you're at the point where a maxed out Ultra machine is the bottleneck in your workflow, you are either buying the entirely wrong class of machine for your needs or you're part of an elite sub-niche of a small number of users.
We were … which is also why bringing up the 3995WX, a 64-core, 128 thread workstation chip not a desktop chip, is equally a non sequitur. If the argument is to make an “Extreme” chip to compete against Threadripper pros and large core Xeons that’s different from saying Apple doesn’t compete against desktop chips which it very much does. Had the M3 ultra existed it would’ve competed against threadrippers like 60s maybe 70s depending on application though not the 80s.
No that’s handled by custom accelerators and the Ultra is incredibly fast for that .
He just said Apple is not competing among high in desktop and workstation that some how the market share is different today than in the 90s and 2000s.