Apples M2 looks like a beast.

Sycraft

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Nov 9, 2006
Messages
5,183
That's the reason why people stuck with Windows, because legacy support is important. Nobody cares if Microsoft has headaches, when they just want their stuff working. This is why Windows and x86 is still around and still #1 for desktops, because some attention to compatibility was given.
It's also "good enough". The world is fully of "good enough" solutions. Something becomes good enough to do what is needed and it becomes the standard. Maybe later something else comes along that is better, doesn't matter, everyone already has something that works. The new thing needs to be a whole lot better to motivate people to switch, otherwise they stick with what is "good enough" because switching is a pain.

A tech example is Windows Phones. They were legitimately better than Android. Better UI, faster, better dev environment, etc. Had they been a thing when Android was released, it probably would have never taken off. But they weren't, they didn't come along until years later. At that point, Android was established and was good enough. Ya Windows Phone was better... but not so much that most people would care. It wasn't worth the hassle to switch, so they didn't, and Windows Phone died with a whimper.

A bigger example would be the power grid: These days, there are good reasons why we might want to do DC power distribution instead of AC. We didn't have the technology needed to convert AC to DC (generators that make AC tend to be more efficient than DC) and more importantly didn't have the tech to change the voltage of DC back when the power grid was implemented, so AC it was. Now we do. Voltage source converters, thyristors, dc-dc converters and such make it perfectly possible to convert AC generator output to DC, step it up for transmission, and step it back down for use. It would be a better system, more efficient due to less line losses and the fact that most of our devices these days need DC and thus must convert AC to DC so we'd eliminate a conversion step (and bigger converters are usually more efficient). Thing is, that would be a massive headache to change and the AC grid is good enough so we stick with it.

Windows is similar: You can argue if other stuff is better, but it really is good enough, so it is what gets used by and large.
 

lopoetve

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 11, 2001
Messages
32,950
I know better than anyone that pushing people to adopt an OS is not going to happen. We are creatures of comfort, and like to stick with things familiar. At least bring Mac OSX back to where it could at least do things that didn't stray away from standards. Apple did support OpenGL forever until they created Metal. Apple also supported CUPS which we linux users use, until they abandoned it.
OSX prints fine. Why adopt an ancient open source utility? It took three mouse clicks to set up a printer. The OS found it natively. As did my phone.
Then don't cry when the Air products losing to fanned devices.
Who’s crying?
In order for it to work fine you must use Apple software? I don't think Apple makes enough software for that.
Hah
Apple use to be, until they weren't.
Till it stopped making sense.
Apple has less than 10% OS desktop market share, which hasn't improved with the introduction of Apple silicon. There's no growth doing what Apple has done for two decades. Also Google open sources Android and they have a very good reason for it.
Do you really want me to paste the profit results for the last 10 years? Are you joking?
They dumped 32-bit support with macOS Catalina. People are upset and made a petition to bring it back.
https://www.change.org/p/apple-bring-back-32-bit-support-on-macos
241 users. Not 2000. Not 20000. 241. In 4 years. This is a joke.
Probably more off than on if you didn't notice it.
I skipped two years using shitty Intel laptops and one gaming laptop worth using.
You are not a benchmark. A quick look at Wine Gaming reddit shows someone who's trying to run TF2 on their Mac. You know, a game natively ported to Mac. Also it seems that even Valve isn't spending money to fix these builds for Apple.
https://www.reddit.com/r/wine_gaming/comments/wm9k0h/how_to_download_tf2_on_playonmac/
Ah. A 15 year old game. Woo. Who cares? No money there.
Like I said. Find something not gaming. I don’t give any more care than Apple about gaming on a laptop. Keep trying.
The point is that it was smaller, lighter, and Intel.
And sucked ass. Like you posted.
 

Sycraft

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Nov 9, 2006
Messages
5,183
Do you really want me to paste the profit results for the last 10 years? Are you joking?
Bragging about how much profit a company generates makes little sense as a consumer. When you say "This company has huge profit margins," what you are saying is "This company charges a lot more than they need to." If a company is making a 3% profit margin, as some retailers do, that means they are giving you pretty close to the best price they could on things. However if a company is making a 20, 30, 50% profit margin, that means they are overcharging you a lot. They could drop the price and still make money, they just don't.

This is something you see a lot with cloud providers and why people should ask themselves if they are really saving money with the cloud. The profit margins are insane, 50% or more in some cases. That means they are charging a lot more than it costs them to provide the service. This is not a good thing to you, the consumer.

Apple is in the 25-30% profit margin range, by the way.
 

lopoetve

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 11, 2001
Messages
32,950
Bragging about how much profit a company generates makes little sense as a consumer. When you say "This company has huge profit margins," what you are saying is "This company charges a lot more than they need to."
Oh son. Let me know when you learn the term soft cost. And how to read a 10k.
If a company is making a 3% profit margin, as some retailers do, that means they are giving you pretty close to the best price they could on things.
No
However if a company is making a 20, 30, 50% profit margin, that means they are overcharging you a lot. They could drop the price and still make money, they just don't.
No
This is something you see a lot with cloud providers and why people should ask themselves if they are really saving money with the cloud. The profit margins are insane,
Yes. And no.
50% or more in some cases. That means they are charging a lot more than it costs them to provide the service. This is not a good thing to you, the consumer.
No.
Apple is in the 25-30% profit margin range, by the way.
I posted that.
 

UnknownSouljer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2001
Messages
7,406
Bragging about how much profit a company generates makes little sense as a consumer. When you say "This company has huge profit margins," what you are saying is "This company charges a lot more than they need to." If a company is making a 3% profit margin, as some retailers do, that means they are giving you pretty close to the best price they could on things. However if a company is making a 20, 30, 50% profit margin, that means they are overcharging you a lot. They could drop the price and still make money, they just don't.

This is something you see a lot with cloud providers and why people should ask themselves if they are really saving money with the cloud. The profit margins are insane, 50% or more in some cases. That means they are charging a lot more than it costs them to provide the service. This is not a good thing to you, the consumer.

Apple is in the 25-30% profit margin range, by the way.
The point is what incentives does Apple have to change their business model? Every company on the planet would rather have less market share and more profit than the other way around.

The focus that detractors have is everything they perceive that “Apple is doing wrong”, when clearly they are doing way more right than not.

And to also put this another way, not every companies goal is to be mass market. Not everyone cares about Prada bags and Versace shoes either; fashion houses sell primarily to 1%ers and people who love fashion. Ferrari the same. If Ferrari could make the most profit from the automotive industry while having less than 5% market share, you don’t think they would?

If you’re a hardcore PC head than the only thing that matters at the end of the day is specs and benchmarks. Apple users have wanted a much more full experience than that. I care about display and touchpad quality. I care about all day battery life. I also care a lot about not having to spend any amount of time doing any form of admin work on my machine. After OCing, water cooling, and reinstalling windows every month for 5 years, I’m over that “hobby”. Quick, efficient, quiet, and extremely fast at photo/video tasks is all I want and need in a machine.

Windows is garbage. The registry is terrible. I’ve had recent installs corrupt themselves and the auto update system breaks more things than it fixes. Don’t even get me started about driver hell. And Linux doesn’t have the application support I need. For creatives, Macs continue to be the best option of all worlds.
 

Sycraft

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Nov 9, 2006
Messages
5,183
And to also put this another way, not every companies goal is to be mass market. Not everyone cares about Prada bags and Versace shoes either; fashion houses sell primarily to 1%ers and people who love fashion. Ferrari the same. If Ferrari could make the most profit from the automotive industry while having less than 5% market share, you don’t think they would?
That's fine and if you want to pay for them, that is also fine. What does not make sense is when you are a consumer, bragging about how much money a company makes. A company making a good product or not is separate from how much they make. I think the comparison to someone like Versace might be instructive, as you find that if you look at blind product tests (where they remove/cover up the logo) expensive brands don't always do so well. Hanes tees come out ahead in comfort testing vs more luxury brands like Versace and Izod. People are paying for the name, the logo, not necessarily the quality.

That aside, I'm not trying to tell you that you are wrong for using a Mac. All I'm saying is you shouldn't celebrate them making a large profit margin, as a consumer. That just means that they could charge you less, but don't. If you are an investor, that makes you happy, max profit margins are great as those returns go to you (in theory, in practice Apple just continues to grow their cash hoard and does not distribute it to investors). As a consumer though, that cash is coming from you. It's fine if you want to spend it, but a little silly to say "It is great that they make so much at my expense."
 

Algrim

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 1, 2016
Messages
1,766
It’s not bragging to point out that Apple is in the 25% to 30% profit margin. It’s pointing out that for a company that is supposedly so stupid not to pay attention to certain markets or open-sourcing the entire operating system (as opposed to say, Darwin) Apple doesn’t seem to be doing too badly. If it’s such a stupid company it should go bankrupt soon, no?

Since Linux is free it should decimate the desktop market share, or it’s supposed to be believed. Thus, it must be sheer madness that Linux for the desktop has approximately 1.3% of the market whereas the company who makes the most closed source hardware and software in the world holds about 6.5%. And then there’s that huge monopolistic conglomerate that holds hard and fast to over 85% of the desktop operating system market despite being also very closed source (except for massive code leaks).
 

UnknownSouljer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2001
Messages
7,406
That's fine and if you want to pay for them, that is also fine. What does not make sense is when you are a consumer, bragging about how much money a company makes. A company making a good product or not is separate from how much they make. I think the comparison to someone like Versace might be instructive, as you find that if you look at blind product tests (where they remove/cover up the logo) expensive brands don't always do so well. Hanes tees come out ahead in comfort testing vs more luxury brands like Versace and Izod. People are paying for the name, the logo, not necessarily the quality.

That aside, I'm not trying to tell you that you are wrong for using a Mac. All I'm saying is you shouldn't celebrate them making a large profit margin, as a consumer. That just means that they could charge you less, but don't. If you are an investor, that makes you happy, max profit margins are great as those returns go to you (in theory, in practice Apple just continues to grow their cash hoard and does not distribute it to investors). As a consumer though, that cash is coming from you. It's fine if you want to spend it, but a little silly to say "It is great that they make so much at my expense."
It’s not bragging to point out that Apple is in the 25% to 30% profit margin. It’s pointing out that for a company that is supposedly so stupid not to pay attention to certain markets or open-sourcing the entire operating system (as opposed to say, Darwin) Apple doesn’t seem to be doing too badly. If it’s such a stupid company it should go bankrupt soon, no?

Since Linux is free it should decimate the desktop market share, or it’s supposed to be believed. Thus, it must be sheer madness that Linux for the desktop has approximately 1.3% of the market whereas the company who makes the most closed source hardware and software in the world holds about 6.5%. And then there’s that huge monopolistic conglomerate that holds hard and fast to over 85% of the desktop operating system market despite being also very closed source (except for massive code leaks).
Basically this.

Every form of Linux is free and it can’t get more than a 1% user base. People pay for the privilege to use Apple and macOS. They’re doing a lot right. In fact conversely you couldn’t pay me to switch to Linux/Unix and I suspect most of the public feels the same way. Most happily pay Microsoft over free Linux.

Talking about money is just another way of talking about value. And whether you think Apple gives value or not, the user base clearly does. Apple sells because it delivers a product people want. Linux is free and it turns out that free isn’t good enough.

Changing from a model that’s placed you in the most valuable companies in the world to a model that can’t even gain more than 1% user base would be the height of stupidity. Anyone that thinks Apple should change “XYZ” has to address the issue of money and how their changes would make them more money. Otherwise it’s a losing argument from the get-go.

----------

EDIT: I also suspect their profit margins are higher because they do most of everything in house. In other words, I imagine PC manufacturing is similar in terms of margin, it's just that all of that margin is divided into more pieces that have to go to more separate manufacturers than Apple. Apple basically only has to pay TSMC and Samsung/LG. And maybe Crucial. Most of their sales are direct, cutting out the middle man either through their stores or online purchases. While they do have placement at other stores, I would bet that a majority are sold directly. Personally every machine I've purchased was direct. 3rd parties by in large don't offer custom configs.

If you're HP as an example, you have to pay Intel/AMD, AMD/nVIDIA, Samsung, LG, Crucial. And either directly or indirectly TSMC, Glofo. manufacturing partners, and Microsoft. They're also paying whatever distributor. Apple's supply chain is way more streamlined and they have much better deals in place.

Samsung has similar margins on their phones, but I'm limiting our discussion specifically to computers.
 
Last edited:

DukenukemX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
6,386
Not sure the link between that and his comment, did not make it even more true if Intel influenced other ?
The benefits of AVX-512 is extremely good, but obviously not many applications currently use it. The problem was that AVX-512 will use a lot of energy when in use, and in the past has killed CPU's when it was implemented into Prime95. Emulators like RPCS3 and Yuzu have implemented AVX-512 and reported massive gains in performance. The same goes for video encoding. Intel influenced it by showing how much faster the benchmarks are when it's used. Why Linus lost his mind over it is just Linus being his usually upset self. Blaming Intel for wasting transistors, when looking at Apple silicon today in how many transistors is used compared to Intel and AMD, which is a lot.

https://overclock3d.net/news/softwa...512_is_important_for_ps3_emulation_and_more/1

This is also the same guy that said this. “Apple’s restrictive control measures and policies will ultimately fail, according to Linus Torvalds," "Linus Torvalds: Apple’s lockdown mentality will ultimately lose" Which I totally agree with him on this, but I'm still waiting waiting to see Apple ultimately lose from this.

https://macdailynews.com/2011/11/18/linus-torvalds-apples-lockdown-mentality-will-ultimately-lose/

Also, the reason he hated Nvidia and gave them the finger was because Nvidia who is a huge supplier of hardware that runs Linux, wasn't supplying source code for their drivers. Apple currently hasn't released any source code for their silicon. Not that Apple uses Linux on their hardware.
 

Aurelius

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 22, 2003
Messages
3,946
As he puts it, he doesn't use it "for any real work" as he's "doing test builds and boots and now the actual release tagging." This is his 3rd Apple hardware he's owned in his life. His previous hardware was "for powerpc development on a ppc970 machine,". Don't read too much into it.

Also Linus Torvalds is not someone to put his words on a pedestal. This is the same guy that wanted Intel's AVX 512 to die a painful death. AMD is adding it to their new Zen4 CPU's and eventually Apple will be on ARMv9 which will have SVE2 which is the equivalent of Intel's AVX-512. That comment did not age well.
https://www.zdnet.com/article/linus-torvalds-i-hope-intels-avx-512-dies-a-painful-death/

That's the reason why people stuck with Windows, because legacy support is important. Nobody cares if Microsoft has headaches, when they just want their stuff working. This is why Windows and x86 is still around and still #1 for desktops, because some attention to compatibility was given. The reason people didn't want to upgrade from Windows XP is because Vista took a shit on compatibility and let the consumers deal with the problems. Nowadays Microsoft is better at this, but also nobody wants to pay for an OS when everyone else including Apple is giving it away for free. By free I mean you gotta buy the Apple hardware. If Microsoft dumped 32-bit support, there will be hell to pay. If Windows 11 was the last OS to support 32-bit, then that's going to be the new Windows XP. Apple dumping 32-bit support was cost cutting, as they no longer want to pay developers to support those libraries.
I don’t think Linus using an Air M2 is some giant coup; it just shows that he's comfortable enough with the hardware to buy it, and didn't let ideology get in the way. And I'm certainly not treating Linus as beyond reproach — it's just amusing to realize that the creator of Linux is more open-minded about Apple than you.

Legacy support is only important to a degree. It's great when it means a business can keep running essential software for a reasonably long amount of time, or when you can run an older game without resorting to an emulator or port. But when I say headaches for Microsoft, I don't just mean inconveniences for the company's bottom line. There are real consequences for users and even the internet at large. If companies are encouraged to think they can run software forever, it becomes that much harder to persuade them to upgrade when the OS eventually drops support — and they wind up running an OS with glaring security holes that go unpatched for years (again, WannaCry succeeded because of this). Customers can sometimes suffer because companies and institutions are limited by ancient software; and like I mentioned, there's sometimes a lowest-common-denominator element where legacy support limits what features an OS can offer.
 
Last edited:

1_rick

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 7, 2017
Messages
3,080
Windows 11 doesn't support 32-bit x86 code
LOLWUT

1660924905545.png
 

LukeTbk

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 10, 2020
Messages
2,942
Also, you clearly need to catch up on multiple fronts, since Windows 11 doesn't support 32-bit x86 code
For someone that compilke and run x86 code everyday on a Windows 11 machine that a shocking relevation, what does that mean ?

Do you mean Windows 11 does not come in a 32 bits version (i.e. not able to run on a 32 bits CPU) that quite different than not supporting x86 code.

Not being able to run a 2021 OS on 2002 or older CPU (or more recent but Atom family one) is quite the different implication that an OS not able to run 32 bits app natively.
 

Aurelius

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 22, 2003
Messages
3,946
For someone that compilke and run x86 code everyday on a Windows 11 machine that a shocking relevation, what does that mean ?

Do you mean Windows 11 does not come in a 32 bits version (i.e. not able to run on a 32 bits CPU) that quite different than not supporting x86 code.

Not being able to run a 2021 OS on 2002 or older CPU (or more recent but Atom family one) is quite the different implication that an OS not able to run 32 bits app natively.
I've pulled that part of my post. It was from a supposedly trustworthy source, but clearly at least some of it isn't correct.
 

Lakados

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 3, 2014
Messages
6,377
I'd read about 32-bit support going away, but I've yanked that portion of my post since it's at least partly untrue.
I remember reading that as well but I think it's one of those things that got blown way out of proportion.|
Actual title: Microsoft to not releasing Windows 11 32-bit
Clickbait title: Microsoft discontinuing support for 32-bit installs
 

jfreund

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 3, 2006
Messages
1,438
MS introduced WoW to run 32 bit code on XP 64 bit, and it works damn well. Apple doesn't care because they have enough users that follow like ducklings with their wallets open.
 

Aurelius

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 22, 2003
Messages
3,946
I remember reading that as well but I think it's one of those things that got blown way out of proportion.|
Actual title: Microsoft to not releasing Windows 11 32-bit
Clickbait title: Microsoft discontinuing support for 32-bit installs
Yeah, that sounds more like it. With that said, the writing is very much on the wall without a 32-bit version: port your apps to 64-bit or they might not run on Windows 12. I wonder if we're going to see history repeating itself, with a significant chunk of businesses running Windows 10 and 11 into the 2030s because those are the last versions that still run some decrepit 32-bit app. Looking forward to revisiting this in, say, 2035.
 

LukeTbk

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 10, 2020
Messages
2,942
With that said, the writing is very much on the wall without a 32-bit version: port your apps to 64-bit or they might not run on Windows 12
Considering how recent 32 bits only giant part of Microsoft software are, that would be a giant surprise. Visual Studio outside the 2022 beta version, is 32 bits only, Office 2016 still have some 32 bits code (and the 32 bits version pushed quite a bit). If the CPU are not x86_A64 anymore and 64 bits alone than yes WIndows 12 will shift to some emulation to run 32 bits software I imagine, forced too.

For most application (anything for which there is zero appeal to use 4 gig of ram or more) I am not sure what would be the benefit of a 64-bit version and the downsides are obvious, if the CPU is able to run 32 bits code I am really unsure why they would do that.
 

Aurelius

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 22, 2003
Messages
3,946
Considering how recent 32 bits only giant part of Microsoft software are, that would be a giant surprise. Visual Studio outside the 2022 beta version, is 32 bits only, Office 2016 still have some 32 bits code (and the 32 bits version pushed quite a bit). If the CPU are not x86_A64 anymore and 64 bits alone than yes WIndows 12 will shift to some emulation to run 32 bits software I imagine, forced too.

For most application (anything for which there is zero appeal to use 4 gig of ram or more) I am not sure what would be the benefit of a 64-bit version and the downsides are obvious, if the CPU is able to run 32 bits code I am really unsure why they would do that.
It's true that many apps won't gain much from moving to 64-bit, but it does mean the OS can be leaner (as it doesn't need to include 32-bit code) and that apps may take better advantage of modern chip architectures. As it is, that Visual Studio beta suggests Microsoft is laying the groundwork for a 64-bit transition. Windows 12 probably won't arrive until late 2024 at the earliest; that's plenty of time to prepare apps (and customers) for the cutoff.
 

DukenukemX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
6,386
It's true that many apps won't gain much from moving to 64-bit, but it does mean the OS can be leaner (as it doesn't need to include 32-bit code) and that apps may take better advantage of modern chip architectures. As it is, that Visual Studio beta suggests Microsoft is laying the groundwork for a 64-bit transition. Windows 12 probably won't arrive until late 2024 at the earliest; that's plenty of time to prepare apps (and customers) for the cutoff.
Like I said, 32-bit code is smaller than 64-bit code. So it wouldn't be leaner, other than the OS losing the libraries needed for 32-bit. I'm sure Microsoft would love to dump 32-bit, but Microsoft is in the business for compatibility. Where Apple shits the compatibility bed and their consumers will come and lick it up, while Microsoft customers won't tolerate it. This is why Windows XP stuck around for such a long time, because Vista broke a lot of things that worked fine in Windows XP. Windows 7 was just Vista with better drivers, which is less to do with Microsoft and more to do with hardware manufacturers.

One thing I've noticed is that Apple community tend to breath in their own farts. I've looked at dozens of Apple M2 reviews and 99% of it is done by people who only review Apple products which has a clear bias. A lot of them will make huge misleading click bait titles like, how the M2 runs Windows 11 faster than on a Intel laptop. I'm not sure why this is, but it wouldn't shock me if Apple were paying people to say positive things about their products, considering how little mind share Apple has among the tech community. Which isn't working as people who already own Apple products are the only people interested in buying Apple products. Linus Tech Tips did more to get non Apple owners interested in buying Apple silicon. The rest of the industry doesn't care that Apple made their own silicon. The power savings advantage of the Apple M2 has been debunked with the exception of single threaded work loads. The performance of the M2 has been debunked as well, since both AMD and Intel frequently outperform Apple's M2. The Apple M2 has less software compatibility compared to the Intel based Macbooks, which only the Apple fans will deny or fight this fact. To me it seems clear that Apple is fighting a losing battle that they started when they switched over to their own silicon.

 

Algrim

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 1, 2016
Messages
1,766
I doubt Windows 11 x86 runs faster on ARM than on AMD/Intel silicon. The reference is almost certainly Windows 11 ARM running faster on M(x)-based hardware than the other Windows ARM-based computers.

And Windows on ARM is the fresh start Microsoft needs to cut their reliance on outdated code stacks.

I’ve moved over a lot of my AWS video rendering to ARM EC2 instances as the price to performance ratio in my (ffmpeg) workloads is insane on ARM. Admittedly, this is Amazon’s Graviton and not Apple silicon but I think it helps put ARM tech in focus.
 

LukeTbk

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 10, 2020
Messages
2,942
One thing I've noticed is that Apple community tend to breath in their own farts. I've looked at dozens of Apple M2 reviews and 99% of it is done by people who only review Apple products which has a clear bias. A lot of them will make huge misleading click bait titles like, how the M2 runs Windows 11 faster than on a Intel laptop. I'm not sure why this is, but it wouldn't shock me if Apple were paying people to say positive things about their products, considering how little mind share Apple has among the tech community
I doubt they would be doing that (at least if by paying we mean direct transfer of cash), I think that could easily happen without it:

1) Apple can and I think make it strict who can test in advance, which in itself can be said to be paying, but that way you can have for the early at least, only a curated group of reviewer and them can want to keep that nice privilege.
2) There is a big enough audience (and product cadence) for someone to do apple only reviews.
3) And that could be a lot of it, those computer-os tend to be really good to do the task a youtube reviewer do day-to-day which can easily explain why so much focus goes into the series of steps involved into making a youtube video in computer reviews (versus say running a database server or compiling code). For people that do that type of work, would not be surprised that they would be legitimately impressed.

The rest of the industry doesn't care that Apple made their own silicon

Did it had no influence into Microsoft releasing their new Arm-Desktop ?
 

DukenukemX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
6,386
I doubt Windows 11 x86 runs faster on ARM than on AMD/Intel silicon. The reference is almost certainly Windows 11 ARM running faster on M(x)-based hardware than the other Windows ARM-based computers.
It's using Parallels with the x86 version. Besides cherry picking benchmarks, they also unplugged the Dell. I don't even know the specs of the Dell, other than it's a Dell. This is what I mean when I say the Apple community is kinda like a cult. I've seen videos where someone tries to show that you can in fact game on a M2 Mac, but the comments sections was also disabled for obvious reasons. The amount of misinformation is palpable.
I doubt they would be doing that (at least if by paying we mean direct transfer of cash), I think that could easily happen without it:

1) Apple can and I think make it strict who can test in advance, which in itself can be said to be paying, but that way you can have for the early at least, only a curated group of reviewer and them can want to keep that nice privilege.
2) There is a big enough audience (and product cadence) for someone to do apple only reviews.
3) And that could be a lot of it, those computer-os tend to be really good to do the task a youtube reviewer do day-to-day which can easily explain why so much focus goes into the series of steps involved into making a youtube video in computer reviews (versus say running a database server or compiling code). For people that do that type of work, would not be surprised that they would be legitimately impressed.
To give you an idea in how corrupt a lot of YouTubers are, both Jayztwocents and Linus Tech Tips made videos telling people to buy GPU's NOW! RIGHT NOW! What are you doing with your life? Buy a GPU before prices go back up. They continued to drop in price to this day, and that video was made back in July. Pretty clear that AIB partners were behind this. Now we have YouTubers who review Apple and only Apple products who make bold claims and don't know how to benchmark, giving out false information about the M2's greatness. Now we see actual tech reviewers get their hands on the M2's and show the flaws of the M2. Though I've yet to see an actually review of the M2 from Linus Tech Tips. They did do a M2 MacBook Pro review but no benchmarks against anything other than the M1. Which I feel is intentional since a lot of other reviewers benchmarks show AMD's Rembrandt handing the M2's ass on a platter. I'd say 98% of Apple M2 reviews claim great battery life on the M2, but don't actually have any benchmarks to show this. This is why I like Hardware Unboxed because their reviews are thorough and they don't focus on any particular hardware, thus they don't have a clear bias. I would include Gamers Nexus but they don't touch Apple. Wish they did, but probably because they never used a Mac.


Did it had no influence into Microsoft releasing their new Arm-Desktop ?
The entire Microsoft Surface products were influenced by Apple in general, and yes so is Microsoft trying to make a good ARM SoC like Apple did. You can include Windows 11 as well, since I see a lot of Mac OSX in there. The Surface products failed horribly, because if people wanted to buy a Apple like product, they would buy it from Apple. Surface products were expensive, like Apple. They were worse at being repaired, like Apple. They performed terribly due to thermal throttling, like Apple. The ARM Surface products were the worst at x86 performance and getting an ARM Windows based laptop has no real benefits over getting once based on Intel.

It's not that Apple doesn't influence the industry, it's that the industry wants to be like Apple down to their faults. More so their faults as that's why some companies try to mimic Apple. The problem for the industry is that people don't want that.
 
Last edited:

Algrim

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 1, 2016
Messages
1,766
I think it’s fair to say that review sites in general try to shade their findings in the best light of the products they review. Why, for instance, did most of us gravitate to this site in the first place? No bullshit reviews, no overt favoritism (though the reviewers were called out for bias when reality didn’t match fantasy), etc. So, this is not really an Apple-only review issue but endemic to the review ecosystem.
 

Aurelius

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 22, 2003
Messages
3,946
Like I said, 32-bit code is smaller than 64-bit code. So it wouldn't be leaner, other than the OS losing the libraries needed for 32-bit. I'm sure Microsoft would love to dump 32-bit, but Microsoft is in the business for compatibility. Where Apple shits the compatibility bed and their consumers will come and lick it up, while Microsoft customers won't tolerate it. This is why Windows XP stuck around for such a long time, because Vista broke a lot of things that worked fine in Windows XP. Windows 7 was just Vista with better drivers, which is less to do with Microsoft and more to do with hardware manufacturers.
You’re spinning things here. Windows’ legacy support is both a gift and a curse; it does mean corporate customers get ample support, but the emphasis on compatibility was so extreme until Windows 10 that customers felt entitled to the point where security and industry progress were hurt.

And Apple is primarily supporting everyday consumers, not large businesses; I don’t think 7-8 years of OS updates, even with chip transitions, is some horribly short time frame. Not necessarily perfect, but it does mean Apple can be more agile on occasion.

One thing I've noticed is that Apple community tend to breath in their own farts. I've looked at dozens of Apple M2 reviews and 99% of it is done by people who only review Apple products which has a clear bias. A lot of them will make huge misleading click bait titles like, how the M2 runs Windows 11 faster than on a Intel laptop. I'm not sure why this is, but it wouldn't shock me if Apple were paying people to say positive things about their products, considering how little mind share Apple has among the tech community. Which isn't working as people who already own Apple products are the only people interested in buying Apple products. Linus Tech Tips did more to get non Apple owners interested in buying Apple silicon. The rest of the industry doesn't care that Apple made their own silicon. The power savings advantage of the Apple M2 has been debunked with the exception of single threaded work loads. The performance of the M2 has been debunked as well, since both AMD and Intel frequently outperform Apple's M2. The Apple M2 has less software compatibility compared to the Intel based Macbooks, which only the Apple fans will deny or fight this fact. To me it seems clear that Apple is fighting a losing battle that they started when they switched over to their own silicon.
Most of the reviews I’ve seen were from sites and creators that more often review Windows PCs. Now, claims Windows is faster in a VM than on an x86 PC are silly, but the reviews I’ve seen are much more sensible and nuanced… but still tend to give the nod to Apple in some tasks. For example, modern MacBooks throttle much less than Windows counterparts while on battery. Just Josh has a great take on the Air M2.

Apple doesn’t pay for reviews. The concern is simply that it sends review units (which have to be returned) to larger outlets it thinks will give a fair or favourable shake to a product. It’s not going to send an Air M2 to Windows Central, a Linux fan site or some other publication that will be highly critical at best, and unfair at worst. It is good to have reviews from outside that bubble, to be clear, but Apple isn’t hatching some fiendish plot by prioritizing outlets that won’t rush to dump on its products.

What’s odd is that you have a view of Apple’s popularity wholly disconnected from the evidence. It may not be as central to tech as some fans think, but it most definitely has a major influence — you yourself have groused that companies like Samsung follow Apple’s lead, for better or worse. Also, Apple has been gaining share disproportionately since M1 Macs arrived, and even now is faring better than most of its major rivals. That means many of its customers are new to the Mac, not just devotees as you imply.
 

DukenukemX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
6,386
You’re spinning things here. Windows’ legacy support is both a gift and a curse; it does mean corporate customers get ample support, but the emphasis on compatibility was so extreme until Windows 10 that customers felt entitled to the point where security and industry progress were hurt.
I don't like the word entitled as that suggests something given and not paid for, which it was paid for.
For example, modern MacBooks throttle much less than Windows counterparts while on battery. Just Josh has a great take on the Air M2.
They don't throttle at all from what I understand
Apple doesn’t pay for reviews. The concern is simply that it sends review units (which have to be returned) to larger outlets it thinks will give a fair or favourable shake to a product. It’s not going to send an Air M2 to Windows Central, a Linux fan site or some other publication that will be highly critical at best, and unfair at worst. It is good to have reviews from outside that bubble, to be clear, but Apple isn’t hatching some fiendish plot by prioritizing outlets that won’t rush to dump on its products.
It's obviously just business, but it's done in such a way to seem like people genuinely believe in the products. It's almost mystical to these people, as if Apple just entered in a cheat code and found a way to make CPU's power efficient. When in reality they just don't know how CPU's work.
What’s odd is that you have a view of Apple’s popularity wholly disconnected from the evidence. It may not be as central to tech as some fans think, but it most definitely has a major influence — you yourself have groused that companies like Samsung follow Apple’s lead, for better or worse.
Apple has customers that everyone wants, because you can hand them over a terrible product and get praised. I think the notch is the stupidest thing every done on screens thanks to Apple's iPhone X, but a lot of companies do it now. It's the illusion that you're getting more screen, when you're just getting something annoying.
Also, Apple has been gaining share disproportionately since M1 Macs arrived, and even now is faring better than most of its major rivals. That means many of its customers are new to the Mac, not just devotees as you imply.
Yea a whole 0.8%. Wanna know how quickly it grew when Apple switched to Intel?
page5_blog_entry205_1.png
 

Aurelius

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 22, 2003
Messages
3,946
I don't like the word entitled as that suggests something given and not paid for, which it was paid for.
I'd say it's fair, as they're frequently expecting more than they paid for. The original purchase covered updates and technical support with set end dates, and those that paid for extended support weren't guaranteed indefinite service. Microsoft didn't promise that apps would always run, and that's where the excessive entitlement comes in.

They don't throttle at all from what I understand
It's certainly slight if there is any throttling. That's one of the reasons why Apple Silicon Macs are better in some scenarios. If you're a creative who needs to edit videos, batch-process photos in the field or run multi-track audio software during a DJ set, you don't want to have to choose between a choking CPU and extremely short battery life. Longevity does take a hit on M1/M2 Macs with heavy-duty work, but not as much as it typically does with AMD/Intel machines running at full bore.

It's obviously just business, but it's done in such a way to seem like people genuinely believe in the products. It's almost mystical to these people, as if Apple just entered in a cheat code and found a way to make CPU's power efficient. When in reality they just don't know how CPU's work.
Some reviews are too glowing. However, I don't think the broader consensus is necessarily wrong. From both my own experience and the more nuanced reviews I've seen, the truth is that Apple has made very well-balanced computers that are faster than comparable Windows PCs for some tasks, last a very long time on battery and generally pack appreciated design elements (high-quality displays, quiet or silent, MagSafe, great keyboard/trackpad). Apple didn't pull off a magic trick; it just wielded its experience in processor design to build ARM chips that address some longstanding problems.

Apple has customers that everyone wants, because you can hand them over a terrible product and get praised. I think the notch is the stupidest thing every done on screens thanks to Apple's iPhone X, but a lot of companies do it now. It's the illusion that you're getting more screen, when you're just getting something annoying.
That's not strictly true. I'd say some were too kind to Apple for things like... well, the butterfly keyboard era. But Apple still gets punished for terrible products. As for notches? They're compromises, but I wouldn't call them stupid. The iPhone X represented a huge leap in effective screen size as Apple was pushing the display almost to the very edge. and freed up space for actual content. Having said this, I'm also glad the iPhone 14 Pro will bring Apple more in line with advances since notches first arrived... cutouts at least feel like they offer more room to breathe.

Yea a whole 0.8%. Wanna know how quickly it grew when Apple switched to Intel?
You're not providing some important context here. Apple got that boost in market share in no small part because it was struggling with the late PowerPC era. Users generally weren't cheering because they had x86; they were cheering because Apple could finally ramp up performance, particularly for laptops.

We've been seeing that for the ARM switch as well, but the jump wasn't as dramatic... and importantly, Apple already has healthy market share. The PPC-Intel leap came at a time when Apple was clearly suffering; the company was hurting as the Intel-ARM switch began, but not for as long or as severely — it was more that Apple knew its recent pain wasn't going to end quickly, and probably saw this as a chance to take greater control of its fate.

The gains haven't been huge, but Apple has still been growing while many of its bigger competitors have taken a hit. Gartner determined that Apple gained 1.7 percent share year-over-year in Q2, which was one of the worst for the overall PC industry in a long time. And according to data shared during earnings calls, about half of Mac buyers are new to the platform. I'd say that makes the ARM changeover a solid success; it was just never going to mirror the relative jump from 2006-2008. The main limiting factor is Apple's focus on the premium category, not its choice of chips. You can only get so far when your cheapest laptop starts at $1,000 (the Air M1) in a market where the average price is probably closer to $500-600. If Apple can figure out how to sell a good-quality MacBook at $800 or less without destroying its margins, it might finally crack the nut and make the kind of share gains you were thinking of.
 

lopoetve

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 11, 2001
Messages
32,950
The point is what incentives does Apple have to change their business model? Every company on the planet would rather have less market share and more profit than the other way around.
Bingo.
The focus that detractors have is everything they perceive that “Apple is doing wrong”, when clearly they are doing way more right than not.
They're doing what their customers and buyers want. To chase those that are not currently your customers, you have to decide if those changes would negatively impact your current customers, and if so, if the gains in customer and revenue base will increase overall margin or not. Apple (who has a lot of VERY well paid financial analysts) has decided that it will not. So far, the market agrees with them. Personally, I look at it and agree with them - trying to charge a premium for "another windows/linux/whatever x86 device" doesn't fly that well anymore, so they pivoted to a different platform. It's currently paying off.
And to also put this another way, not every companies goal is to be mass market. Not everyone cares about Prada bags and Versace shoes either; fashion houses sell primarily to 1%ers and people who love fashion. Ferrari the same. If Ferrari could make the most profit from the automotive industry while having less than 5% market share, you don’t think they would?

If you’re a hardcore PC head than the only thing that matters at the end of the day is specs and benchmarks. Apple users have wanted a much more full experience than that. I care about display and touchpad quality. I care about all day battery life. I also care a lot about not having to spend any amount of time doing any form of admin work on my machine. After OCing, water cooling, and reinstalling windows every month for 5 years, I’m over that “hobby”. Quick, efficient, quiet, and extremely fast at photo/video tasks is all I want and need in a machine.
This. I just spent the first week "on the road" with my 14" M1 MBP. Best laptop I've ever had - blows the 16" Intel I9 one I had before out of the water. Battery easily went for 9 hours on one day doing a lot of admin work (VDI, web interface, code writing, etc), and still had juice left when I went back to the hotel. It was great.
Windows is garbage. The registry is terrible. I’ve had recent installs corrupt themselves and the auto update system breaks more things than it fixes. Don’t even get me started about driver hell. And Linux doesn’t have the application support I need. For creatives, Macs continue to be the best option of all worlds.
It's a choice. I use all three regularly. All have good things, all have bad things about them. Someone's advantage (the laptop just bloody works for what you need) may be someone else's disadvantage (it won't run games for DukenukemX ). That's a choice.
Basically this.

Every form of Linux is free and it can’t get more than a 1% user base. People pay for the privilege to use Apple and macOS. They’re doing a lot right. In fact conversely you couldn’t pay me to switch to Linux/Unix and I suspect most of the public feels the same way. Most happily pay Microsoft over free Linux.
I use all three - and there are things I wouldn't try to do on linux, things I'm tired of doing on windows, and things I wouldn't do on OSX. They're tools to accomplish a goal - use the right tool for your goal. Gaming isn't even on the top 10 for my mobile needs - so Apple works fine.
Talking about money is just another way of talking about value. And whether you think Apple gives value or not, the user base clearly does. Apple sells because it delivers a product people want. Linux is free and it turns out that free isn’t good enough.
Bingo.
Changing from a model that’s placed you in the most valuable companies in the world to a model that can’t even gain more than 1% user base would be the height of stupidity. Anyone that thinks Apple should change “XYZ” has to address the issue of money and how their changes would make them more money. Otherwise it’s a losing argument from the get-go.
Bingo again. How many more users do you get building a random x86 laptop? What does that cost you, in terms of existing user base, margins, support costs, manufacturing costs, etc?
----------

EDIT: I also suspect their profit margins are higher because they do most of everything in house. In other words, I imagine PC manufacturing is similar in terms of margin, it's just that all of that margin is divided into more pieces that have to go to more separate manufacturers than Apple.
Yes. Also margins are tighter because competition is all making the SAME thing out of the SAME parts - Intel and AMD make CPUs, and Asus, Dell, Gigabyte, etc all get the same chips (unless you're amazon/facebook/hyperscalar of your choice). You have to compete differently.
Apple basically only has to pay TSMC and Samsung/LG. And maybe Crucial. Most of their sales are direct, cutting out the middle man either through their stores or online purchases. While they do have placement at other stores, I would bet that a majority are sold directly. Personally every machine I've purchased was direct. 3rd parties by in large don't offer custom configs.
CDW/Arrow do custom software integration but that's for the enterprise - otherwise direct to consumer.
If you're HP as an example, you have to pay Intel/AMD, AMD/nVIDIA, Samsung, LG, Crucial. And either directly or indirectly TSMC, Glofo. manufacturing partners, and Microsoft. They're also paying whatever distributor. Apple's supply chain is way more streamlined and they have much better deals in place.

Samsung has similar margins on their phones, but I'm limiting our discussion specifically to computers.
Samsung is competing directly against Asus, HTC, LG, OnePlus, Huawei, etc. Apple is competing against "android."
Like I said, 32-bit code is smaller than 64-bit code. So it wouldn't be leaner, other than the OS losing the libraries needed for 32-bit. I'm sure Microsoft would love to dump 32-bit, but Microsoft is in the business for compatibility. Where Apple shits the compatibility bed and their consumers will come and lick it up, while Microsoft customers won't tolerate it. This is why Windows XP stuck around for such a long time, because Vista broke a lot of things that worked fine in Windows XP. Windows 7 was just Vista with better drivers, which is less to do with Microsoft and more to do with hardware manufacturers.
Different customer base, different goals, different needs.
One thing I've noticed is that Apple community tend to breath in their own farts. I've looked at dozens of Apple M2 reviews and 99% of it is done by people who only review Apple products which has a clear bias.
Know your customer base.
A lot of them will make huge misleading click bait titles like, how the M2 runs Windows 11 faster than on a Intel laptop. I'm not sure why this is, but it wouldn't shock me if Apple were paying people to say positive things about their products, considering how little mind share Apple has among the tech community.
There are lots of issues there - they're likely getting the kit for free, but they also know their customer base.
Which isn't working as people who already own Apple products are the only people interested in buying Apple products. Linus Tech Tips did more to get non Apple owners interested in buying Apple silicon. The rest of the industry doesn't care that Apple made their own silicon.
Eh... they care, but most aren't going to go out and build their own because it takes a dedicated customer base to make the risk of that kind of investment worth it. Microsoft can pull that off - their margins being a software and cloud company first enable them to explore the idea (and decide to go with 3rd party ARM instead). Dell trying to do it would be in a much different place - no vertical integration and no customer base that is highly tied to your products that you can justify future purchases on. I can replace a Dell laptop with an HP with an ASUS and so on - harder to do if you like OSX.
The power savings advantage of the Apple M2 has been debunked with the exception of single threaded work loads. The performance of the M2 has been debunked as well, since both AMD and Intel frequently outperform Apple's M2. The Apple M2 has less software compatibility compared to the Intel based Macbooks, which only the Apple fans will deny or fight this fact.
You're absolutely right. And again - so what? It works for their needs and has a hell of a lot better battery life for the things they do, and runs the software they need it to run. If it wasn't, do you think they'd still be buying?

Sell outcomes, not tech. The outcome is making Apple money - a ton of it.
To me it seems clear that Apple is fighting a losing battle that they started when they switched over to their own silicon.


You can believe that if you want. Corporate margins and products shipped would seem to disagree, and that's what the street looks at (this last quarter notwithstanding).

Lets be honest - if Apple made a laptop with an Intel CPU and an Nvidia 3000 series in it, and charged the same premium they do now, you wouldn't buy it - you're not a customer either way. They'd have to cut product margin to compete directly with Dell/etc to do so - and you likely still wouldn't buy. On top of that they'd likely lose customers as the extra bulk and cooling requirements (not to mention the weaker battery life of powering all that) would turn off their current buyers. Apple knows their customers better than either you or I possibly could - they target them. Different market, different needs.
It's using Parallels with the x86 version. Besides cherry picking benchmarks, they also unplugged the Dell. I don't even know the specs of the Dell, other than it's a Dell. This is what I mean when I say the Apple community is kinda like a cult. I've seen videos where someone tries to show that you can in fact game on a M2 Mac, but the comments sections was also disabled for obvious reasons. The amount of misinformation is palpable.
Because the tests were run with the Apple unplugged, I believe -apples to apples.
To give you an idea in how corrupt a lot of YouTubers are, both Jayztwocents and Linus Tech Tips made videos telling people to buy GPU's NOW! RIGHT NOW! What are you doing with your life? Buy a GPU before prices go back up. They continued to drop in price to this day, and that video was made back in July. Pretty clear that AIB partners were behind this. Now we have YouTubers who review Apple and only Apple products who make bold claims and don't know how to benchmark, giving out false information about the M2's greatness. Now we see actual tech reviewers get their hands on the M2's and show the flaws of the M2. Though I've yet to see an actually review of the M2 from Linus Tech Tips. They did do a M2 MacBook Pro review but no benchmarks against anything other than the M1. Which I feel is intentional since a lot of other reviewers benchmarks show AMD's Rembrandt handing the M2's ass on a platter. I'd say 98% of Apple M2 reviews claim great battery life on the M2, but don't actually have any benchmarks to show this. This is why I like Hardware Unboxed because their reviews are thorough and they don't focus on any particular hardware, thus they don't have a clear bias. I would include Gamers Nexus but they don't touch Apple. Wish they did, but probably because they never used a Mac.


Will comment on this after watching the video.
The entire Microsoft Surface products were influenced by Apple in general, and yes so is Microsoft trying to make a good ARM SoC like Apple did. You can include Windows 11 as well, since I see a lot of Mac OSX in there. The Surface products failed horribly, because if people wanted to buy a Apple like product, they would buy it from Apple.
BINGO. Now you get it. DIFFERENT markets. Different needs. Different interests. You can call that a cult if you want - you can call it being blinded, but Microsoft wants apple's customers - and failed to get them. Apple doesn't particularly want to compete directly with those guys - they're trying to carve their own niche, their own market (again, this is called the blue-ocean vs red-ocean approach in economics and finance), and it's WORKING for them.
Surface products were expensive, like Apple. They were worse at being repaired, like Apple. They performed terribly due to thermal throttling, like Apple. The ARM Surface products were the worst at x86 performance and getting an ARM Windows based laptop has no real benefits over getting once based on Intel.

It's not that Apple doesn't influence the industry, it's that the industry wants to be like Apple down to their faults. More so their faults as that's why some companies try to mimic Apple. The problem for the industry is that people don't want that.
See above as to why. That was a dumb decision by microsoft - in my opinion - but I get why they did it. They just didn't understand WHY Apple made those choices. Apple going after the PC laptop market would be much the same - sure, they could build a gaming laptop, but why? They'd never get that money back.
I'd say it's fair, as they're frequently expecting more than they paid for. The original purchase covered updates and technical support with set end dates, and those that paid for extended support weren't guaranteed indefinite service. Microsoft didn't promise that apps would always run, and that's where the excessive entitlement comes in.


It's certainly slight if there is any throttling. That's one of the reasons why Apple Silicon Macs are better in some scenarios. If you're a creative who needs to edit videos, batch-process photos in the field or run multi-track audio software during a DJ set, you don't want to have to choose between a choking CPU and extremely short battery life. Longevity does take a hit on M1/M2 Macs with heavy-duty work, but not as much as it typically does with AMD/Intel machines running at full bore.
Especially with custom hardware handling a lot of that. You can argue that a GPCPU is "better" than one with specialized hardware, but if all you need is a certain set of encodings or the like done - custom silicon will get the job done for sure.
Some reviews are too glowing. However, I don't think the broader consensus is necessarily wrong. From both my own experience and the more nuanced reviews I've seen, the truth is that Apple has made very well-balanced computers that are faster than comparable Windows PCs for some tasks, last a very long time on battery and generally pack appreciated design elements (high-quality displays, quiet or silent, MagSafe, great keyboard/trackpad). Apple didn't pull off a magic trick; it just wielded its experience in processor design to build ARM chips that address some longstanding problems.
Agreed.
That's not strictly true. I'd say some were too kind to Apple for things like... well, the butterfly keyboard era. But Apple still gets punished for terrible products. As for notches? They're compromises, but I wouldn't call them stupid. The iPhone X represented a huge leap in effective screen size as Apple was pushing the display almost to the very edge. and freed up space for actual content. Having said this, I'm also glad the iPhone 14 Pro will bring Apple more in line with advances since notches first arrived... cutouts at least feel like they offer more room to breathe.
Agreed. The notch is annoying on some things - disappears for others.
You're not providing some important context here. Apple got that boost in market share in no small part because it was struggling with the late PowerPC era. Users generally weren't cheering because they had x86; they were cheering because Apple could finally ramp up performance, particularly for laptops.
And they'd lost so much customer base again they needed something to get them back. Once they had them hooked on apple-native products again on the software side, the hardware became somewhat irrelevant. Plus, 15 years of hardware and software evolution made the hardware much less relevant to average consumer use cases. So much more is web based or container based now.
We've been seeing that for the ARM switch as well, but the jump wasn't as dramatic... and importantly, Apple already has healthy market share. The PPC-Intel leap came at a time when Apple was clearly suffering; the company was hurting as the Intel-ARM switch began, but not for as long or as severely — it was more that Apple knew its recent pain wasn't going to end quickly, and probably saw this as a chance to take greater control of its fate.

The gains haven't been huge, but Apple has still been growing while many of its bigger competitors have taken a hit. Gartner determined that Apple gained 1.7 percent share year-over-year in Q2, which was one of the worst for the overall PC industry in a long time. And according to data shared during earnings calls, about half of Mac buyers are new to the platform. I'd say that makes the ARM changeover a solid success; it was just never going to mirror the relative jump from 2006-2008. The main limiting factor is Apple's focus on the premium category, not its choice of chips. You can only get so far when your cheapest laptop starts at $1,000 (the Air M1) in a market where the average price is probably closer to $500-600. If Apple can figure out how to sell a good-quality MacBook at $800 or less without destroying its margins, it might finally crack the nut and make the kind of share gains you were thinking of.
Yep.
 

Red Falcon

[H]F Junkie
Joined
May 7, 2007
Messages
11,665
Basically this.

Every form of Linux is free and it can’t get more than a 1% user base. People pay for the privilege to use Apple and macOS. They’re doing a lot right. In fact conversely you couldn’t pay me to switch to Linux/Unix and I suspect most of the public feels the same way. Most happily pay Microsoft over free Linux.
Linux in enterprise is not free, and there are very high licensing costs to use it, let alone the cost of support.
RHEL, Oracle, etc. all have high costs associated with them, and rightfully so.
 

Lakados

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 3, 2014
Messages
6,377
Linux in enterprise is not free, and there are very high licensing costs to use it, let alone the cost of support.
RHEL, Oracle, etc. all have high costs associated with them, and rightfully so.
This right here, by the time I get my various support agreements in place even the Free distros are more expensive than the Windows ones, you pay a premium for Linux support. I love my REHL boxes but they are a few $K a year each in support and maintenance.
 

UnknownSouljer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2001
Messages
7,406
Linux in enterprise is not free, and there are very high licensing costs to use it, let alone the cost of support.
RHEL, Oracle, etc. all have high costs associated with them, and rightfully so.
Coolio. Learned something. But it doesn’t really speak to what I was referring to, which was general users. Not system admins for servers.

If you want to have that conversation, then it’s probably 90% Linux/Unix/BSD and maybe 9% Windows and then there is probably still 1% of admins/businesses running servers with MacOS and I know some school sysadmins that use it for deployment to Mac machines and that’s it. But that isn’t the convo.
 
Last edited:

Red Falcon

[H]F Junkie
Joined
May 7, 2007
Messages
11,665
Coolio. Learned something. But it doesn’t really speak to what I was referring to, which was general users. Not system admins for servers.

If you want to have that conversation, then it’s probably 90% Linux/Unix/BSD and maybe 9% Windows and then there is probably still 1% of admins/businesses running servers with MacOS and I know some school sysadmins that use it for deployment to Mac machines and that’s it. But that isn’t the convo.
You said "every form of Linux is free", which is not correct.
If you wanted to discuss Linux in regards to general users and generally available distros then you should have specifically stated that.

I didn't necessarily want that conversation, but because you made a blanket statement I then made a blanket response.
 

Lakados

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 3, 2014
Messages
6,377
Coolio. Learned something. But it doesn’t really speak to what I was referring to, which was general users. Not system admins for servers.

If you want to have that conversation, then it’s probably 90% Linux/Unix/BSD and maybe 9% Windows and then there is probably still 1% of admins/businesses running servers with MacOS and I know some school sysadmins that use it for deployment to Mac machines and that’s it. But that isn’t the convo.
Are we including Android and ChromeOS in the free Linux category? Because if we include them then the ratio of consumer Linux users skyrockets and both are I want to say freemium? I mean there are free and openish source versions of both…
 

Mchart

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 7, 2004
Messages
5,761
Showing my age... When I was in high school, the electronics department had an Apple IIe and the business department had the first IBM PC. The business people looked at Apple and said 'all it does is play games; for real work you need a PC!' Fast forward to now and the PC people look at Macs and say 'but they don't play games!'

Who knew what topsy turvy world we'd live in...
Anyone in graphic design, etc used an Apple back then. Quarkxpress was the standard and the Apple version was way better with the font support, etc. PCs were fairly garbage outside of basic stuff like spreadsheets and WordPerfect.
 

idiomatic

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 12, 2018
Messages
311
There are a whole bunch of users Apple has chosen not to give a fuck about, in fact they actively avoid them.

Its very possible if you are on this forum you are one of the users Apple really doesn't want to have as a customer.

Try not to take it personally.

This includes pretty much all the 'professional' users. Apple actively markets to 'the professional in all of us' a.k.a. amateurs.
 

UnknownSouljer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2001
Messages
7,406
There are a whole bunch of users Apple has chosen not to give a fuck about, in fact they actively avoid them.

Its very possible if you are on this forum you are one of the users Apple really doesn't want to have as a customer.

Try not to take it personally.

This includes pretty much all the 'professional' users. Apple actively markets to 'the professional in all of us' a.k.a. amateurs.
I would say that's a pretty uniformed statement.
Apple works at a pretty high level in certain industries.

ProRes as an example is used in every single top cinema camera in Hollywood, whether discussing ARRI, RED, Sony, Panasonic, etc. It's known to be one of the best compressed formats ever created; it has very easy playback (especially while editing multi-track), All-Intra, excellent compression, and zero generational loss. Most of those features other formats like h.265 and h.264, as an example, don't have. If something isn't shot on some form of propretary RAW in Hollywood, it's nearly a 100% chance that it's shot on ProRes. And I'll note that most of the time RAW isn't used except on things that are particularly high budget. I would say in general I see 12-bit ProRes 4444 being used way more often than ARRIRAW.

In the audio and recording industry, Logic is still one of the top NLE's (NLE's are mostly about user choice and also about genre. FL Studio, ProTools, and Ableton also all being popular with I would say a majority of users using Macs to run). Which has been used to record, and mix countless albums and also used as the back end to mix films and shows.

The Mac Pro is for no one else other than professionals. How many casual users spend $6000 starting on a machine (up to $80k)? Or $5000 on a display? No one is buying a $4000 Mac Studio to work in iMovie, or as DukeNukemX brings up constantly: "to play games". This hardware is very specifically targeted at editing and grading houses, and VFX/SFX devs.
There are plenty of other people that use the CPU and graphical performance with MacOS software to do plenty of other things that don't necessarily relate to the Audio/Visual realm - that's just the industry I'm in and know best. But chances are whatever your favorite music is and whatever shows and movies you like were all edited on a Mac.
 
Last edited:

LukeTbk

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 10, 2020
Messages
2,942
But chances are whatever your favorite music is and whatever shows and movies you like were all edited on a Mac.
If we like big budget it is more likely to have been on a Mac than on an Avid machine ? Until very recently it was a major deal when a studio affair was not on Avid no ? It changed that fast ?
 
Top