The M1 Ultra debuts

Topic

New Reply

APPLE NEWS By Will Fastie Keeping to schedule, Apple drops the next shoe in its master plan to get all its products running on its own, proprietary, s
[See the full post at: The M1 Ultra debuts]

1 user thanked author for this post.

Alex5723

Reply | Quote

Replies

Don’t know if the M1 platform is really a threat to Wintel. It’s not the hardware that sells computers – it’s the software. While major software titles are available for both Windows and Apple, Windows software in general outnumbers the amount of Apple software significantly.

Then there’s the habit of Apple to change platform every x years, which means them software publishers have to re-write their stuff a great deal from scratch. Which most don’t.

Last but not least – price. For most people the deciding factor.

2 users thanked author for this post.

rc primak, Will Fastie

Reply | Quote

Simon_Weel wrote:

Then there’s the habit of Apple to change platform every x years

The difference this time is that Apple is using its own silicon, not third-party chips. And the instruction set is ARM, thus unifying software development across iPhone, iPad, and Mac.

Simon_Weel wrote:

Which most don’t.

I’m sure some apps do fall away. But that’s not what I’m seeing in general. When Apple moved from PowerPC to Intel, there was a brief disruption but very few popular apps vanished as a result. Today, Adobe has all its top apps running on M1, with promises to have everything done at some point in the future. But even the laggers will run acceptably well in Rosetta.

Simon_Weel wrote:

Last but not least – price. For most people the deciding factor.

I agree that the total cost of ownership for a Mac is higher and that there are many apps for Windows that are not on the Mac. I’m very much tied to a suite of Windows apps that are not available on Mac and I’m very unlikely to switch. My wife, however, is a much more typical consumer and could easily use a Mac instead, at reasonable cost.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Simon_Weel

Reply | Quote

The difference this time is that Apple is using its own silicon, not third-party chips. And the instruction set is ARM, thus unifying software development across iPhone, iPad, and Mac.

Yeah, but ARM can’t run a lot of Wintel software, and almost all Linux software does poorly or does not run at all on ARM. This is being upgraded (downgraded? ARM uses RISC which is a reduced instruction set) both for Windows and many Linux distros and repos, but we are not there yet.

Rosetta is fine for relatively low-demand CISC software. But it won’t cut it for more demanding programs and suites. Open source software has a particularly difficult time keeping up with such low-level changes.

I agree that the total cost of ownership for a Mac is higher and that there are many apps for Windows that are not on the Mac.

Being an open-source/Linux user, I see the price difference through a different lens. The Apple Tax is very steep indeed if you are getting most of your software and OS for free. (Well, to be fair, ethical open source users make donations from time to time!)

I’m not knocking Mac, ARM or M1 technology.  Just pointing out that some of us come at this sort of change from different perspectives.

-- rc primak

2 users thanked author for this post.

Will Fastie, Simon_Weel

Reply | Quote

Will Fastie wrote:

Yeah, but ARM can’t run a lot of Wintel software

I think that’s less a problem today than it was in the past because in many cases compilers and API shims will allow rapid porting of apps, including Windows apps.

rc primak wrote:

Rosetta is fine for relatively low-demand CISC software.

I agree that it is an interim, not ideal solution. Adobe makes this clear.

rc primak wrote:

Being an open-source/Linux user, I see the price difference through a different lens.

No doubt. And I’m sure Apple will not focus on Linux for many years – WinTel is a much bigger market. As I’ve said before, taking a few points away from the WinTel market share doesn’t affect Microsoft and Intel very much, but it makes a huge difference to Apple.

1 user thanked author for this post.

rc primak

Reply | Quote

The difference this time is that Apple is using its own silicon, not third-party chips. And the instruction set is ARM

The PowerPC was a joint-venture of Apple, IBM and Motorola so technically, that wasn’t a third-party chip. And it was RISC-based as well.

Anyway, don’t get me wrong, I do think it’s a good thing Apple stirring the CPU pan. But I’m not so sure about their long-term intentions. Vendor lock-in being the most obvious….

 

2 users thanked author for this post.

wavy, rc primak

Reply | Quote

But I’m not so sure about their long-term intentions. Vendor lock-in being the most obvious….

Even more of an issue for open source/Linux users. Vendor lock-ins are much more of a problem for open source developers.

@ Will Fastie — Our Replies collided, and contain some similar content.

-- rc primak

Reply | Quote

Simon_Weel wrote:

Vendor lock-in being the most obvious….

That’s been Apple’s modus operandi for decades. Nothing new there.

1 user thanked author for this post.

rc primak

Reply | Quote

Simon_Weel wrote:

Last but not least – price. For most people the deciding factor.

Apple tax is a myth. Comparable WinTel (performance, power usage.).. hardware cost the same if not much more.

People buy on price and get what they paid for : low quality, poor performance, miserable/no support..

Reply | Quote