Impact of the M1 chip on Windows and PCs

<blockquote><em><a href="#595005">In reply to F4IL:</a></em></blockquote><p>A modular and extensible design actually meets the needs of a small subset of users. Laptops themselves make up around 65% of the market, desktop computers make up maybe 35% at most. Of those desktop computers, most computers sold to businesses are sold preconfigured and that configuration is never changed. So the vast majority of computers – really don't need to be modular at all – they just need to deliver the configuration you need. The majority of users don't care about the or have to know which processor it is, they just need it to run the software they need – and in many cases is a rather small number of applications overall. What is important is what the computer can do to better your work life or life — and that will likely come down to – how long does the battery last, and does the computer do what I need it to and at what cost. The M1 will likely deliver all the power most people need. The M1 will likely deliver on the all day battery power. The M1 will be able to deliver both of those things on likely the lowest SKU. When you go to a computer order page with Intel processors you usually get a choice of 4+ processor options (starting at a tray price to the manufacturer of $250 up to $500 or more) — intentionally so that the addon price of the processor drives higher profitability for Intel. A processor like the M1 will be the most powerful processor option available for a specific thermal envelope at the lowest and only sku price… In the end Apple will be able to deliver more for less. That is the story that is developing, and that is why Windows partners have to have a competing option or they will just be seen as legacy and that will threaten the hold that Windows has on many markets now… it will start slow, but if no competing story develops… it could eventually lead to continuing decline over time IMHO. </p>

<blockquote><em><a href="#596439">In reply to 2ilent8cho:</a></em></blockquote><p>I expect each of the market segments (maybe 3 or 4 standard processors for all Macs) to offer premium chips for the lowest price for that model – rather than choices of 3, 4, or 5 Intel/AMD skus within each computer (it makes no financial sense to do the same as Intel as to cripple lower end chips so that higher end chip options will drive profits; with the exception of binning). </p><p><br></p><p>I do expect a good gain on the 'M1X' or whatever they name it based on the rumoured (12 core processor — obviously there is thermal headroom). I think 30%+ on the CPU side is well within the likely M1X performance gains… The GPU side – I cannot fathom a guess. I do wonder how far tile-based rendering can be pushed in comparison to nVidia/AMD intermediate-mode (I think the Intel endeavor is also tile based). Tile based rendering is much more efficient – so it is something to watch closely.</p><p>The M1 computers IMHO will likely be far superior to Intel/AMD laptops going forward (65%+ of the market). </p><p><br></p><p><br></p>

<blockquote><em><a href="#598236">In reply to VancouverNinja:</a></em></blockquote><p><strong>"Apple OS's just can't compare to Windows 10."</strong></p><p><br></p><p>Really, maybe you can enlighten us by expanding on your hyperbole?</p><p><br></p><p><strong>"And driving Mobile apps backwards to PC's is another massive mistake e.g. "Mobile First" which derailed productivity by a decade."</strong></p><p><br></p><p>So you must hate the Microsoft Surface machines… "Mobile First" I take as applications that have been written for only a touch user interface (no keyboard etc.). But then Apple is not encouraging "Mobile First" applications on the Mac, it is only a first step on developing universal apps for iPadOS and macOS – with the UI customized depending on the machine you are running on it. i.e. on a Mac it should be implemented using Mac user interface guidelines and on the iPadOS it should be implemented using iPadOS user interface guidelines. The problem with Windows and it setting things back by about a generation or two is the fact that the people designing it were literally trying to make the UI the same for both without regards to delivering the best interface for each use case. Apple tends to have much more thorough approach to focusing on how the majority of users use their devices. So just because Microsoft put the wrong people in charge does not mean supporting a spectrum of devices is not a bad idea… just the implementation failed horribly… </p><p><br></p><p><strong>"Current Mac owners will be excited at first and then realize they just have another expensive Mac."</strong></p><p><br></p><p>And yet, the Macs will have more performance for the same or less price than before. When you make the processor more performant while generating less heat – and at significantly less cost – you can use that extra thermal headroom for adding more specialized silicon on the high-end giving you more performance for the tasks that need it, and also delivering significant performance improvements at the bottom of the line. So we will have to disagree on this. (though your post seemed more like a troll post, I decided I would answer it as though it was not).</p><p><br></p>