Make sure to read past the linked comment. The linked comment gets about half their points wrong, and their conclusions are some of the most silly things I have read this week. The reply comments really fix the issues.
Interesting read, especially the comments correcting some major points.
Fairly terrible read all in all. The top reply addresses most of the wrongs. On top of that I'd like to add that we're nowhere near the point where desktops completely disappear; if you want portability you're paying a premium for it (or an excessive premium if you pick up an Apple laptop). And high-end performance is just not available in a laptop. Gaming, VR, and people that actually use their computers for more than office apps, will still need the power that a desktop supplies.
This guy is talking like Intel and Apple both operate in the same market today. That's hasn't been true for like 25 or 30 years.
First, how is this "explain like I'm five?" Try showing /u/dont_forget_canada's comment to a five-year-old and see how far you get. *(Edit: Yes, I get that it's not literally for five-year-olds. But an awful lot of folks in the comments seemed to be completely lost.)*
Second, as someone with CPU-designer buddies, this article is 15 kinds of wrong about all the stuff that matters. I won't bother to elaborate, since as others have pointed out the rebuttal comments are mostly on-point.
Apple became a walled garden in 1984, when the Macintosh became the first seriously successful consumer computer that had all its hardware and software built by the same company. The original Macs had Motorola 68Ks in them, so it's not anything special about the PowerPC that was the cause of this. Apple has always built hardware-software combinations that are cheap and simple, which has allowed them to make high profit margins on their products.
OP is all sorts of wrong, it is every evident in his very first rebuttal to the replies...because he replied with "yeah but".
That was an absolutely fascinating read. Thanks for sharing!
Interesting bit of Apple history and some insight for the future. I've been a Mac user for almost 25 years. I was actually really happy when Apple switched to Intel and "caught up" with hardware specs. But its definitely been feeling like Apple has forgotten the Mac and desktop computing in general lately.
Right now I've got a 2012 MacMini for day-to-day and work, and a gaming PC I broken down and built two years ago. I keep waiting for Apple to put out an update for the Mini. But, it sounds like I should learn to use the iOS versions of Keynote and Numbers instead.
Thats still way over my head....I understood like 20% of that post
Tailosive Tech on YouTube does a great job explaining how the closed ecosystem works.
>explains why apple became a walled garden
No it doesn't! When people say that, they're talking about apps needing to be approved by Apple to be allowed on their store and making installing them from third party sources difficult. This comment just talks about hardware.
I remember Jobs back in the old days, shrieking about Windows proprietary nature.
ARM CPUs might be good for notebook class laptops. The kind that can browse the net and process words. But without some big developments very soon they aren't about to get competitive with Intel or AMD in the desktop space.
It's telling that the linked post says that PCs will get thinner and lighter and get better battery life; how is this possible when PCs conform to ATX standards? They are thinking only of laptops and then only a very specific kind of laptop.
I'm not saying it won't happen, just that they'd better jump on that.