would be Apple interested in flooding the PC market with Macs?

[burgerrecords]

Apple doesn"t chase market share. They build solid reliable products and don't cut corners.

Apple avoids competing primarily on price. There are plenty of solid reliable products that don’t cut corners that are commoditized, but product differentiation (perceived, superficial and actual) is a core part of apple still, it appears.

Since Apple is having trouble creating "the next iphone" product space, to create the new markets their shareholders expect, perhaps computers are a market they can grow in. I was thinking about the fact that Windows 10X doesn't run as many processes in the background in interest of battery life - so perhaps efficiency in design can allow for Apple to keep margins but be sufficiently competitive on price. (which is obviously exactly what they do on iphone)
[automerge]1594399991[/automerge]

Android phones and tablets typically have plenty more RAM than Apples and they consistently get beaten for performance despite this.

Of course that has nothing to do with RISC vs CISC (since Android is RISC too) but primarily with streamlining due to the inherent advantage of supporting less hardware and i'm sure some Apple magic too of some type.

Battery powered devices are the justification Apple needed for welding the software and hardware together (since windows and linux handle the infinite amount of possible hardware configurations just fine these days and windows has really since mid XP. - personally on a non-portable i'd much rather have thousands of options using open standards with the rare (and typically obviously low cost part) easy enough to avoid

We might not see a "flood," but i'm i think there are lots of demand if Apple can deliver something competitive (combined with 75% of my professional software being browser/cloud based now)

 

[awesomedeluxe]

No. I think Apple will do a bunch of stuff that makes their machines still premium, like being the first to LPDDR5 or even using HBM2E. I think they want to do everything they can to make these first machines a show of force.

They might sell a cheaper Mac Mini and/or a cheaper 12-13" laptop, using SoCs from other devices that got printed with faulty cores. The Macbook Air in particular has always been the poor students entry into Apple World. But these price cuts will be the exception, not the rule.

 

[Waragainstsleep]

Seems like the iPad Pro does more with 3GB RAM than a lot of Intel machines do with 8 or 16.

 

[burgerrecords]

Seems like the iPad Pro does more with 3GB RAM than a lot of Intel machines do with 8 or 16.

I personally like to be able multi task and not wait for things to reload into memory. I also like running non iOS versions of software and being able to add peripherals. I like using virtual desktops. I don't need a machine to do more with less memory when i can buy 32gb of highest quality desktop grade ram for $110.
[automerge]1594405964[/automerge]

The Macbook Air in particular has always been the poor students entry into Apple World. But these price cuts will be the exception, not the rule.

"Poor" is a terrible choice of word there.

 

[Danny82]

No. I think Apple will do a bunch of stuff that makes their machines still premium, like being the first to LPDDR5 or even using HBM2E. I think they want to do everything they can to make these first machines a show of force.

They might sell a cheaper Mac Mini and/or a cheaper 12-13" laptop, using SoCs from other devices that got printed with faulty cores. The Macbook Air in particular has always been the poor students entry into Apple World. But these price cuts will be the exception, not the rule.

I agree with this. Even though having Apple reducing cost is a dream.. but they are not known for that.. but hopefully they will add in more goodies to us so we feel good buying it and is true, last time, if they make their mac fast, it is good for their reputation but at the same time it actually boost intel reputation together.. now that it is apple silicon, they will not be stingy and will do whatever they can to boost their mac as it will only do well for their reputation and in return dominate the world with mac..

 

[Waragainstsleep]

I personally like to be able multi task and not wait for things to reload into memory. I also like running non iOS versions of software and being able to add peripherals. I like using virtual desktops. I don't need a machine to do more with less memory when i can buy 32gb of highest quality desktop grade ram for $110.
[automerge]1594405964[/automerge]

Except at the moment its ~$400 for 32GB so more with less is good.

 

[burgerrecords]

Except at the moment its ~$400 for 32GB so more with less is good.

The ram that is used with an Intel/AMD desktop/laptop processors is not $400/32 gb. A quick google search will easily verify that; so doing less with more is not necessary for that ecosystem.

Apple will need to do magical things to makes 3 gb perform like 16 gb - therefore an inexpensive, reasonably *useful* apple laptop running their own MacOS (which obviously is what the apples to apples comparison - not general purpose OS vs mobile phone OS) will require the form factor of a notebook to somehow allow the use of less expensive Ram, due to the larger battery.

 

[Waragainstsleep]

The ram that is used with an Intel/AMD desktop/laptop processors is not $400/32 gb. A quick google search will easily verify that; so doing less with more is not necessary for that ecosystem.

Thats what Apple charges to upgrade a MacBook Pro to 32GB atm. This is a Mac forum, why would I compare to PC prices?

 

[burgerrecords]

Thats what Apple charges to upgrade a MacBook Pro to 32GB atm. This is a Mac forum, why would I compare to PC prices?

Wow i had no idea they were charging that. Hard to blame Intel for that.

 

[Waragainstsleep]

Wow i had no idea they were charging that. Hard to blame Intel for that.

Oh yeah that's all Apple all the way. And you can't get it elsewhere either.

 

[Falhófnir]

I don't think they would deliberately make, say a $599 MacBook to try and gain volume, but if savings meant they could offer an $899 or $799 MacBook Air and that helped boost sales then I'm sure they'd be happy with that... realistically though at most I expect a 12" MacBook Air based on the 12" MacBook but at the price of the old 11" Air ($899) is as close as we will get to an actual reduction in price of admission.

 

[Waragainstsleep]

I don't think they would deliberately make, say a $599 MacBook

Maybe they'll make one by accident?

 

[Boil]

Apple secures three month exclusive for release of GTA VI & includes a free copy with every Apple Silicon Mac sold during those three months.

That might generate some sales...?

 

[tdar]

Everyone has offered their opinions from Apple's prospective. I think we need to consider another prospective. The Customers. While I have a Mac and will buy an AS Mac Mini on day of release, I mostly use and love Windows. I'm A PC guy. But Apple has changed the game with these AS systems. I expect that I will also buy another AS Mac Mini to become my Windows PC. I expect that Microsoft is going to help me make that happen, First in virtualization, With their Hyper -V product but also by offering support to VMWare and Parallels. Then by making their ARM version of Windows run natively on the AS Macs. With the performance improvements, and majorly increased battery life for laptop users, customers are going to demand these machines. Both for macOS, but also for Windows. I think that Microsoft and Apple will oblige.

 

[Waragainstsleep]

Maybe but I think Apple is going to try to take some market share from Windows. And then they can force developers to make Mac versions of apps that were previously Windows only. As long as they run Windows with comparable performance to a Wintel box, they can't force Windows only devs to branch out. The combo of increased market share and compatibility of iOS apps that those same devs have already been forced to build will help them achieve this so I have to wonder if they won't hold off on allowing native Windows booting for a while at least. I do think MS will licence Windows for ARM for use on Macs one way or another.

 

[Kostask]

i'm not sure that running the ARM version of Windows is a good idea, or desirable form an end user perspective. From all reports, it essentially sucks, and doesn't run all x86/x64 apps and there aren't many ARM native Windows apps. Now, if Apple could run X86/x64 Windows and apps, that would be worth doing, and useful for end users. I don't know how it could be done exactly, not being a software developer, but I would think that there would need to be some sort of hardware abstraction done at the hypervisor layer, so when Windows was loaded, it would seem to be running on an X86/X64 CPU. This, as always, would need some sort of licensing agreement between Apple and Microsoft.

 

[jdb8167]

i'm not sure that running the ARM version of Windows is a good idea, or desirable form an end user perspective.

It also might not be possible without a redesign from Microsoft. One thing about Apple's CPUs is that they don't support AArch32. If Microsoft Windows on ARM requires 32-bit compatibility then even with a VM, it won't work. Nor would BootCamp.

 

[cocoua]

for the higher price segment, I don’t think prices will change much. People who pay $1.5K+ for a computer are probably professionals who need it for work. Those people will gladly buy macs at their current prices, and with the intel PCs performing considerably worse, they will have a strong incentive to buy a Mac.
now for the entry level MacBooks, this is a little bit different. Casual users and students don’t care that much about performance, so the better performance wouldn’t matter a lot here. Apple could still lure them in with longer battery life/less heat/less fan noise/lighter machine, but I don’t think that would be enough to convince someone who isn't willing to pay or simply doesn’t have the money. Outside the U.S. macs are not very popular, and that’s because of the price. If apple wants to dominate the student market, and increase their international market share, they have to drop the price. Maybe a MBA with the A12Z chip and the same chassis as the current MBA for 799$? I can see a machine like this dominating all colleges tbh.
now the question is, would apple do this? It’s uncharacteristic of them, but they did drop the price two years in a row with the MBA so who knows!

well, sorry but intel PC aren't performing worse than macs, quite the opposite, After Effects and Premiere would run faster on PCs at a much lower price, this doesn't mean performance is all, and this doesn't mean MacIntel wouldn't outperform Intel Pc in many other apps. But this is true.
(i.e. best AE performance would require 3 internal high speed disk with higher Ghz CPU, and Apple hasn't any of this offer as Xeon aren't build for single core performance)

After Effects CC 2018: iMac Pro & Mac Pro vs PC Workstation

After Effects users are often held back by the performance of their workstation, yet a surprising number of users lock themselves into the Mac ecosystem. In this article we will be looking at just how much faster a PC workstation can be in After Effects compared to the iMac Pro and Mac Pro.

www.pugetsystems.com

Photoshop performance: PC Workstation vs Mac Pro (2019)

Apple's new Mac Pro is a very slick and sturdy machine, but does its high price translate to better performance in Photoshop?

www.pugetsystems.com

Premiere Pro performance: PC Workstation vs Mac Pro (2019)

Adobe Premiere Pro is generally pretty decent at leveraging both the CPU and GPU in your system, but even with a 28 Core CPU and Radeon Pro Vega GPUs, is the new 2019 Mac Pro able to keep up with a significantly more affordable PC workstation?

www.pugetsystems.com