Beyond what others have mentioned, we also mustn’t discount the possibility that Apple Silicon could be a strategic move to lower device MSRP, thus increasing market share and Apple services revenue.
People will instinctively write off this idea, but this is the new pricing strategy Apple has been employing with the $329 entry level iPad, $399 iPhone SE, and the new $279 Apple Watch SE. The Macintosh now remains Apple’s only major consumer product line that hasn’t seen aggressive price reductions to make Apple services accessible to a broader range of consumers. The move to Apple Silicon, which could save Apple potentially hundreds of dollars per device, is the perfect time to move the Mac to this pricing strategy. If this happens, it would absolutely eat into Intel’s consumer market share.
I know you're joking, but looking at some Geekbench scores there doesn't seem to be a single Android phone on the market that can outperform the iPhone SE in single-core performance. The OnePlus 8 is the closest, but still not really that close.
iPhone SE: 1321
OnePlus 8: 898
On multi-core it's a little better since there seem to be seven Android phones that can outperform the iPhone SE:
iPhone SE: 2737
OnePlus 8: 3281
OnePlus 8 Pro: 3216
Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra 5G: 3107
Samsung Galaxy S20+ 5G: 3102
Samsung Galaxy S20 5G: 3078
Huawei Mate 30 Pro 5G: 2918
Huawei Mate 30 Pro: 2835
However, all of those Android phones cost quite a bit more than the SE.
Because Apple is going to prove TSMC is capable of building x86 destroying processors. Not in theory. Not academic or institutional one offs... no, it’ll be mass-produced and in the hands of consumers.
Intel’s failure to get their fabs running has put them into a death spiral unless they pull off a miracle.
Also, if Apples ARM chips are really that fast they will be purchased by the shipload to be sent to performance critical operations like HFT. They will be put into servers or turned into them to squeeze and eek out every possible advantage... which will shit on intels most profitable lines (Xeons for single threaded workloads).
Why not? Apple used to sell servers. It could easily sell its chips to Azure or GCP to compete with Amazon’s Graviton chips.
It’ll help Apple cement their dev tools as industry standard, it’ll further amortize overall dev costs by increasing volumes, people can develop better algorithms with their custom hardware accelerators for ML and etc, it’s a great way to fight the current anti-trust cases against Apple.
There are some pretty good reasons for Apple to sell their chips to 3rd parties.
They could probably make money there, but it would take time and energy to do, doesn’t seem like it helps their brand, and seems generally a bit afield for them.
Then again, they started their own TV studio, so what do know.
The situation is a bit different though. If Apple's plan was to produce processors for the likes of HP, Dell, etc, then maybe that would be an issue. But I highly doubt they will move into those markets. It's AMD that's poised to take over that space.
“Haven’t ever” is simply not true. Apple has had plenty of historical server products, including dedicated rack servers with the Xserve line. That’s not to say it’s likely but it’s not unprecedented ;P
I don't think they were really interested in the market honestly. They did it because they felt the needed to, to support use cases like CI for macOS and iOS apps. It was all about supporting the Apple developer community. They cut it as soon as it wasn't necessary, IMO.
> They did it because they felt the needed to, to support use cases like CI for macOS and iOS apps
Actually, the Xserve platform really had nothing to do with that. Xserve’s were partly designed and built for the high end video production industry (as an extension of the Mac Pro hardware) and partly as a general purpose small to medium size business file server / web server (which the Mac Mini has subsumed what’s left of that space).
And they scrapped them. That's exactly my point. They were not committed: they made an uncompetitive product for a few years and bailed instead of trying harder. Compare to the Mac.
yes, yet cloud changes it as the naturally non-consumer thing - cloud datacenters - are needed by the Apple itself to serve the consumer oriented cloud based functionality. So, it may so happen that the major money saving from their own chip would be not on the consumer devices, instead it would be Apple's datacenter/cloud costs/density/efficiency/etc., and that improvement on those metrics can also enable and push Apple further into cloud business.
Apple is a trendsetter, though: I think, as a rule, Apple’s decisions are copied by a large part of the market so its market share isn’t an adequate measurement of its influence. This will be especially true if Apple Silicon MacBooks are impressive in some way, like extra-long battery life.
Absolutely, better performance per watt means longer battery life. Windows already supports ARM. Microsoft doesn't really have a choice here but to improve support for ARM. Office on Mac seems like is going to be ready for Apple Silicon if that effort also helps Office on Windows ARM then they are half way there.
How so? Apple's market share is something like 10% so it's a minority of Intel's market.