What's new

ARM on desktop machines?

Tronam

New Member
Apple has inched their way up in market share for PCs, but they're still a small player on a relative basis. They're sitting at 7% - well below the top 3 (Lenovo, HP, and Dell, at 24%, 22%, and 16.8% respectively.) IIRC, although it has fluctuated, Apple has never broken 10% or so, and they've been near their current number decades ago.
...
Of course, this isn't to say Apple isn't very successful. They are. But it's more because of their extremely high prices as opposed to dominating market share.
This is all technically true, but I think discussions around market share of personal computers and phones can be a little misleading sometimes because Apple has typically avoided high volume, lower end "commodity" markets. Windows and Android numbers are heavily padded out with low end office computers, netbooks, and cheap or "free" phones. What was the single best selling phone over this past year? The iPhone 11, and it wasn't even close. In fact, of the top 10 most sold smartphones, 5 were iPhones. Sure, in aggregate there were more Android phones sold overall across many models and manufacturers, but most are not competing at the high or even midrange. Most basic, modern flip/slider/candybar budget phones are running Android too.

Apple likes the position they're in. They make most of the profits and get to avoid much of the legal scrutiny directed at dominant marketshare leaders. It's a win win situation for them. And because they're willing to so aggressively "burn the bridges behind them", the Mx chips will be very difficult for the rest of the industry to quickly respond to. Apple is one of the few companies in the world who can pull off this level of full vertical integration. Microsoft and the entire x86 software/hardware industry is shackled by decades of legacy tech debt and expected backward compatibility (which can be a good thing too!). For desktop computers where power and cooling systems can keep growing and become more elaborate as needed, this isn't as big of an immediate issue. In the laptop space they'll be in for quite a shock within the next 2 years. The M1 is just the beginning.
 

SirKen

Member

China was a big market for Apple and Apple's market share will decline further in China due to the major push of Huawei and Xiaomi. Of course, this doesn't mean that Apple is doomed.

On the note of M1, it is quite impressive what it can accomplish on the low end. However, like Andrew said, I would like to see if the current approach is scalable before making a judgement call on X86, especially after the recent performance gains AMD has introduced to the market.
 

Tronam

New Member

China was a big market for Apple and Apple's market share will decline further in China due to the major push of Huawei and Xiaomi. Of course, this doesn't mean that Apple is doomed.

On the note of M1, it is quite impressive what it can accomplish on the low end. However, like Andrew said, I would like to see if the current approach is scalable before making a judgement call on X86, especially after the recent performance gains AMD has introduced to the market.
They wouldn't have announced the move to Apple silicon if they didn't already know they could meet or exceed the performance of their entire product line, including their higher end "pro" machines. Modern Apple is typically very conservative about fundamental technologies like this. This isn't some last minute move of desperation like back in 2006. They have over a thousand chip engineers and been planning this for years. They've also made sure there is enough performance headroom to compensate for most penalties incurred by x86>ARM64 translation. In many cases Rosetta 2 translation still manages to outperform native on Intel with like for like hardware models.

I'm not sure where this assumption is coming from that they can't scale up their custom silicon because they've already been doing this across all of their devices for a long time now. From the smallest chips in AirPods to the custom Afterburner accelerator card they launched with the Mac Pro last year which can handle 20+ 4K RAW video stream timelines. This is just the tip of the iceberg.

I wouldn't worry too much about x86 though; It isn't going anywhere soon, but the performance-per-watt battle is going to be a rough one for CISC moving forward.
 

SirKen

Member
They wouldn't have announced the move to Apple silicon if they didn't already know they could meet or exceed the performance of their entire product line, including their higher end "pro" machines. Modern Apple is typically very conservative about fundamental technologies like this. This isn't some last minute move of desperation like back in 2006. They have over a thousand chip engineers and been planning this for years. They've also made sure there is enough performance headroom to compensate for most penalties incurred by x86>ARM64 translation. In many cases Rosetta 2 translation still manages to outperform native on Intel with like for like hardware models.

I'm not sure where this assumption is coming from that they can't scale up their custom silicon because they've already been doing this across all of their devices for a long time now. From the smallest chips in AirPods to the custom Afterburner accelerator card they launched with the Mac Pro last year which can handle 20+ 4K RAW video stream timelines. This is just the tip of the iceberg.

I wouldn't worry too much about x86 though; It isn't going anywhere soon, but the performance-per-watt battle is going to be a rough one for CISC moving forward.

You might be right but I think the move has more to do with Apple not needing to provide high level performance for the pro market to keep their bottom line going. This move was fantastic for them as it will please the masses due to their low computing requirements. It also creates a better ecosystem for people willing to buy into Apple.
 

Nick Batzdorf

Moderator
Moderator

China was a big market for Apple and Apple's market share will decline further in China due to the major push of Huawei and Xiaomi. Of course, this doesn't mean that Apple is doomed.

My technical analysis says Apple's stock hasn't tumbled all that far.

This is the chart for the past month:

1606961764048.png

Here it is for... looks like less than six months, I dunno, it was supposed to be a year but I shrunk the window:

1606961677421.png
 

SirKen

Member
My technical analysis says Apple's stock hasn't tumbled all that far.

This is the chart for the past month:

View attachment 40359

Here it is for... looks like less than six months, I dunno, it was supposed to be a year but I shrunk the window:

View attachment 40358

Great chart! The drop from the article on October 30th can be seen on your chart right there. That being said, I am failing to understand how these charts relate to the Apple's market share of personal computers and phones. Were you by any chance distracted by the "Apple shares decline" portion of the article title instead of focusing on the 29% revenue drop in China due to lower iPhone sales numbers?
 

Nick Batzdorf

Moderator
Moderator
I'm focusing on how any day of the week you can find several articles saying AAPL downside fundamentals upside risk personal computer space China surprise earnings report core competence analyst forecasts.
 

Nick Batzdorf

Moderator
Moderator
Also, trading 30X earnings bellweather moving average analyst Yao Ming, who was right about the iPhone 12 having a better camera, predicts ARM shipments Q1.
 

Rory

Amateur Auteur
My experience is that it was a good idea to purchase the stock in 2010-2011, hold onto it and ignore the clever analysis. If you've been listening to Apple earning calls every quarter for a decade, the Chinese market is not exactly a new, earth shattering topic. When it comes to Apple, every day for the last decade there has been no shortage of people peddling everything from dark clouds to Armageddon. They would have found that buying the stock would have been a better use of their time than predicting Apple's future on Internet forums.
 

SirKen

Member

I don't know if it is the lack of punctuation or something else but I am really struggling following your points and how it relates to the previous conversation. I will do us both a favour and bail out of this thread. We can all wait and see if Apple will be able to scale up the ARM CPUs.

Also, my apologies to everyone else in the thread and the OP for unintentionally letting this topic digress by posting a relatively recent article that had references to APPL share price. I just wanted to highlight the potential impact of the change in sales and tried to connect it to the Apple's product decisions.

Anyway, wish you all a great evening!
 

ChromeCrescendo

Active Member
I just bought the Mac Pro 7,1 earlier this year and now there is an ARM Mac
How soon before they begin making Mac Pro's with ARM - ughhhh maybe I bought too soon
 

Tronam

New Member
I just bought the Mac Pro 7,1 earlier this year and now there is an ARM Mac
How soon before they begin making Mac Pro's with ARM - ughhhh maybe I bought too soon
They officially stated 2 years for the full transition. Since they tend to refresh their highest end systems the least frequently, the Mac Pro will likely be the last one they update. Now that the most popular entry level models are taken care of they’ll focus on the higher end laptops and iMacs next year. With the dramatically lower power requirements of Apple silicon it’ll be interesting to see how they design a new Mac Pro enclosure since it won’t need such an elaborate cooling system as the current design. I wouldn’t be overly concerned though. They have a good track record of supporting their pro systems for at least 5-7 years, so Intel based macOS will be around for a while yet.
 

Saxer

Senior Member
No matter what happens with Apple and PC development: if you buy a computer right now it will not stop working just because a newer computer would be faster.
You can fall out of play if you need to be compatible to a broad user base and you are dependent on the newest version of all software you use. Mainly concerns software developers. But as the complete user base is still on Intel machines the switch to a new system will last longer than the average life time of a computer.

And even at the time before 2000 when no computer was really fast enough and all the studio work was a kind of never ending workaround using external hardware and extension cards and chassis for extension cards to get the needed CPU it was a good idea to buy a computer when you need it. Waiting for the next better one is just a waste of time. Whining about better machines out there if yours is still working too.
 

Alex Fraser

Requires ☕️
I just bought the Mac Pro 7,1 earlier this year and now there is an ARM Mac
How soon before they begin making Mac Pro's with ARM - ughhhh maybe I bought too soon
I brought a MbP earlier this year. The intel inside is clearly from another era of computing, getting all hot and warm at the slightest provocation.

I kept my previous Mac for around 7 years. This one is getting traded for a new Mx model within 3 three years tops.

I have no fears about the tech scaling up to "pro" levels . In fact, I'd bet that the models are already running in some form in Apple's underground labs.
 

macmac

Active Member
What I wonder is since Apple now launches a new OS every year, yet people will not all be buying an ARM computer right now, will the future OS's during that transition time (and purchasing span) still incorporate Rosetta 2? Or will they stay with Big Sur for more than a year.

During the intel transition, Snow Leopard was the only OS that offered Rosetta.
 

kitekrazy

Senior Member
I'm about to buy myself a new machine (PC with Ryzen 5900X), and suddenly a fear takes hold of me, "and if this one was going to quickly become obsolete?".

With Apple's recent M1, the world realizes the power of ARM processors, and all at a decent price (I never thought I would one day put affordable and Apple in the same sentence). :laugh:
Apple having decided to no longer use X86 processors, I suppose that we will soon see desktop machines from them and that we will take a second technological slap.

I guess the competition will react and eventually we will have desktop ARM on Windows.
So here is where I am, should I make this purchase, or by luck would I have a few years before seeing the obsolescence of my machine coming?

I would like to know what you think of my reflection, hoping to be reassured?

Windows systems don't really become obsolete unless the hardware can't be replaced. What keeps the Pc market alive is gaming and PC gaming is still the top platform.
 

Nick Batzdorf

Moderator
Moderator
I don't know if it is the lack of punctuation or something else

It's something else, and I'm not sure why you're getting all huffy, because what I posted isn't fighting snark, it's just commentary.

Anyway, even though computers are much longer-term investments than they used to be, one thing hasn't changed: you wait to buy a new machine until you need it, knowing a better one will come out soon.

 
Last edited:
Top Bottom