Here is a cost based analysis of building ARM-chips themselves versus buying from Intel. Net-net, they save $2B + (and this analysis does not include the RAM costs)
https://medium.com/@sumitg_168... [medium.com]
Non upgradable RAM, mid range performance for high end prices...
Apple, as we all know, does "value" based pricing, not cost-up. And value = brand, apps, ease of use, etc. They are not optimizing for folks who want upgradable RAM, etc. From apple's perspective, those folks can buy the high-end MacBooks... And $40B in revenue per year suggests their product strategy is working.
You are 100% right about value-based pricing, but slashdot readers have never understood and will never understand that. This is a crowd that thinks computers should be priced be weighing the silicon, metal, and plastic that goes into their production and charging a flat rate plus 5% markup.
Funny you say that because it's actually the exact opposite. Those who use real tools out in the field generally pay substantially more for overall value. Go ask a mechanic why they pay so much more to use Snap-On or Mac instead of Craftsman. Go see how many carpenters prefer the lower cost of Black and Decker over Bosch, Milwaukie, or DeWalt. Check on the mountain climbers who prefer carabineers that are priced based on the cost of the alloy+ a 5% mark-up.
but slashdot readers have never understood and will never understand that
Oh no Slashdot understands that. Why do you think so many people here mock Apple "fanbois" chasing new shiny things. That's what value based means, and it's a stupid way to buy a tool.
Perhaps this is the case. But IBM allows their employees to buy the computer they prefer. What they found out is that the Macs cost on average about $500 (I think this is the right figure, it is about that) less than the PC. They do account for support costs over time, not just the purchase price. So perhaps those "fanbois" chasing shiny things know something that you don't. There is real value in a Mac - it may not be easy to identify (e.g. via benchmarks) but it is there, and provably so at least for the
The complaint is that 'value' in the Apple territory is dubious, as they are more focused on being more like a designer brand and exploiting it at the expense of their capabilities.
It's frustrating to see such a prominent player blatantly milking their base to mostly the manufacturers benefit without so much actual value to the customer. Here for example they aren't going to get much value in the laptop space but they will inconvenience their customers and improve their margins by reducing their costs whil
Their product strategy is working because 1% of Mac users know something about their computers. The rest will never notice even such big change as having a completely different processor or Rosetta emulator. They just buy what's on the shelves. Those that think they're Mac experts only know how much memory it has and that usually includes the SSD memory, or only SSD memory. When you ask Mac users how much memory they have in their computers they will usually answer how much SSD memory they have... well, to
The new Pros are cheaper than the Intel ones they're still selling. It looks like they passed some of those savings down to the consumer.
Here's what's really happening: Apple told us they will transition all their Macs to ARM processors over the next two years. Right now, they have built their first low-end chip. And they put it into three low-end Macs (I'll expect low-end iMacs with M1 chips quite soon). The prices stayed the same.
What is confusing people is that these low-end chips run 2-3 times faster than the low-end chips they are replacing, so performance wise they exceed or come close to much more expensive Macs. These will get the
Non upgradable RAM, mid range performance for high end prices...
You probably didn't notice, but the M1 chip is the _low end_ chip. They replaced the chips in _low end_ Macs, and they all have improved performance by a factor 2.5 to 3.5. 16 GB is twice what many expensive PC laptops ship with. And no, they are not high end prices. Only if you compare with rubbish PCs, that don't come close to a low-end Mac.
They are claiming that the on-chip RAM gives a significant performance advantage, similar to AMD's old HBM on-chip RAM for GPUs.
So either they are planning to abandon that performance benefit for the high end ARM chips so that they can support expandable RAM, or they aren't and are just transitioning customers to a throwaway device like an iPad with fixed specs.
I really doubt that they intend to give up on the high end.
Without a doubt they know the use-cases for large amounts of RAM (they sell a Mac Pro with up to 1.5 TB of RAM) and will eventually get there with their ARM chips. It is likely through the classic mechanisms of adding DIMM slots or the like, but you never know. Maybe they have some clever solution that they will spring upon the world (probably not I agree).
Apple didn't trigger the transition to ARM without mapping this all out. They definitely didn'
The money they don't have to contribute to Intel's net profit isn't even the main reason for the transition. By going to their own CPUs, Apple's product release cycles aren't subject to a third party's schedule.
Have Apple ever bothered with Intel's schedule? The are notorious for selling 3 year old CPUs at the same price they launched at. The Apple upgrade cycle seems to have little to do with availability of parts.
That's hardly surprising. Intel has been riding a gravy train for 40 years, charging $100-$900 for a sliver of silicon that other CPU/SoC vendors could only get $5-$25 for at the same size. The CPU industry was badly in need of competition, which was difficult because what gave Intel the performance lead was its monopoly over proprietary process fabrication plants. They were consistently 1-2 generations ahead of anyone else, which meant they could manufacture faster at the same power draw, or lower power
While Intel has historically commanded an unreasonable premium, it's not that extreme.
AMD and nVidia produced products of similar complexity and they cost as much. When some server ARM vendors actually got to market, they weren't any cheaper either. A snapdragon 865 for high end phones costs $160, the same as an i5-9400, for less performance.
The only areas where you have under $25 are things like the broadcom soc that Rpi uses and such, but that's a 28nm part that's relatively lower performance.
Appl
Marvelous! The super-user's going to boot me!
What a finely tuned response to the situation!
Cost based analysis also is awesome for Apple (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Cost based analysis also is awesome for Apple (Score:4, Insightful)
How about a cost benefit analysis for the buyer?
Non upgradable RAM, mid range performance for high end prices...
Re:Cost based analysis also is awesome for Apple (Score:5, Insightful)
How about a cost benefit analysis for the buyer?
Non upgradable RAM, mid range performance for high end prices...
Apple, as we all know, does "value" based pricing, not cost-up. And value = brand, apps, ease of use, etc. They are not optimizing for folks who want upgradable RAM, etc. From apple's perspective, those folks can buy the high-end MacBooks ... And $40B in revenue per year suggests their product strategy is working.
Re:Cost based analysis also is awesome for Apple (Score:5, Insightful)
You are 100% right about value-based pricing, but slashdot readers have never understood and will never understand that. This is a crowd that thinks computers should be priced be weighing the silicon, metal, and plastic that goes into their production and charging a flat rate plus 5% markup.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, that's exactly the mentality of a person who treats a product as a tool, not a toy.
Re: (Score:2)
Funny you say that because it's actually the exact opposite. Those who use real tools out in the field generally pay substantially more for overall value. Go ask a mechanic why they pay so much more to use Snap-On or Mac instead of Craftsman. Go see how many carpenters prefer the lower cost of Black and Decker over Bosch, Milwaukie, or DeWalt. Check on the mountain climbers who prefer carabineers that are priced based on the cost of the alloy+ a 5% mark-up.
Re: (Score:2)
but slashdot readers have never understood and will never understand that
Oh no Slashdot understands that. Why do you think so many people here mock Apple "fanbois" chasing new shiny things. That's what value based means, and it's a stupid way to buy a tool.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps this is the case. But IBM allows their employees to buy the computer they prefer. What they found out is that the Macs cost on average about $500 (I think this is the right figure, it is about that) less than the PC. They do account for support costs over time, not just the purchase price. So perhaps those "fanbois" chasing shiny things know something that you don't. There is real value in a Mac - it may not be easy to identify (e.g. via benchmarks) but it is there, and provably so at least for the
Re: (Score:2)
The complaint is that 'value' in the Apple territory is dubious, as they are more focused on being more like a designer brand and exploiting it at the expense of their capabilities.
It's frustrating to see such a prominent player blatantly milking their base to mostly the manufacturers benefit without so much actual value to the customer. Here for example they aren't going to get much value in the laptop space but they will inconvenience their customers and improve their margins by reducing their costs whil
Re: (Score:2)
And value = brand
Yep, that you put that first kind of sums up Apple.
*goes back to sipping latte*
Re: (Score:2)
"Value" based pricing, so that's the newspeak for "market control" pricing?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The new Pros are cheaper than the Intel ones they're still selling. It looks like they passed some of those savings down to the consumer.
Re: (Score:2)
The new Pros are cheaper than the Intel ones they're still selling. It looks like they passed some of those savings down to the consumer.
Here's what's really happening: Apple told us they will transition all their Macs to ARM processors over the next two years. Right now, they have built their first low-end chip. And they put it into three low-end Macs (I'll expect low-end iMacs with M1 chips quite soon). The prices stayed the same.
What is confusing people is that these low-end chips run 2-3 times faster than the low-end chips they are replacing, so performance wise they exceed or come close to much more expensive Macs. These will get the
Re: (Score:2)
Non upgradable RAM, mid range performance for high end prices...
You probably didn't notice, but the M1 chip is the _low end_ chip. They replaced the chips in _low end_ Macs, and they all have improved performance by a factor 2.5 to 3.5. 16 GB is twice what many expensive PC laptops ship with. And no, they are not high end prices. Only if you compare with rubbish PCs, that don't come close to a low-end Mac.
Re: (Score:2)
They are claiming that the on-chip RAM gives a significant performance advantage, similar to AMD's old HBM on-chip RAM for GPUs.
So either they are planning to abandon that performance benefit for the high end ARM chips so that they can support expandable RAM, or they aren't and are just transitioning customers to a throwaway device like an iPad with fixed specs.
Re: (Score:2)
I really doubt that they intend to give up on the high end.
Without a doubt they know the use-cases for large amounts of RAM (they sell a Mac Pro with up to 1.5 TB of RAM) and will eventually get there with their ARM chips. It is likely through the classic mechanisms of adding DIMM slots or the like, but you never know. Maybe they have some clever solution that they will spring upon the world (probably not I agree).
Apple didn't trigger the transition to ARM without mapping this all out. They definitely didn'
Re:Cost based analysis also is awesome for Apple (Score:5, Interesting)
The money they don't have to contribute to Intel's net profit isn't even the main reason for the transition. By going to their own CPUs, Apple's product release cycles aren't subject to a third party's schedule.
-jcr
Re: (Score:2)
Have Apple ever bothered with Intel's schedule? The are notorious for selling 3 year old CPUs at the same price they launched at. The Apple upgrade cycle seems to have little to do with availability of parts.
Re: (Score:2)
In that case, they won't get embarrassed by phoning it in on their laptop lineup and being late to market all the time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
While Intel has historically commanded an unreasonable premium, it's not that extreme.
AMD and nVidia produced products of similar complexity and they cost as much. When some server ARM vendors actually got to market, they weren't any cheaper either. A snapdragon 865 for high end phones costs $160, the same as an i5-9400, for less performance.
The only areas where you have under $25 are things like the broadcom soc that Rpi uses and such, but that's a 28nm part that's relatively lower performance.
Appl