Quote from: kek on March 22, 2021, 06:05:31You are really naive if you think Windows doesnt makes money for Microsoft. Every single computer sold through OEM's has a Windows license attached to it, and more likely than not, an Office license is sold on those bundles, too. There's also the business side of things, which is huge, too. The only reason it looks like sidelined for now is because Nutella, their Indian CEO, has focused on Azure for everything, even for making his daily coffee cup. That, of course, will bite them on the long run, because important projects like Windows Phone were killed just because they werent making money, even though they were an important pillar for the future.

I never said they don't make money from it, but you know that already, you just chose to ignore it because acting like I did allowed you to start off your reply with an insult instead of just a civil discussion. But companies like Microsoft prefer spending their resources on areas that offer the most profit, and while Windows has lots of revenue, it also has significant costs associated with it, to the point their profit margin is much lower than it is for other products. Office is a substantially simpler product than Windows, yet costs roughly the same (retail; when OEMs buy Windows licenses, they buy them in bulk and pay significantly less than retail), and potentially even more with the subscription model. Since W10 came out, they've been giving it away for free and then allowing it to be used for free with the only limitation being you can't customize a few aspects of it. That's because the money they make off of it is relatively small compared to what they make off their other products.

There's a reason they're focusing on Azure/SaaS and have all but quit improving Windows, thinning down the development team. And there's a reason they've expanded the compatibility of their other software to enable its use on Android and iOS. And it has nothing to do with their CEO being Indian (actually Indian-America, and not sure why that's worth specifically mentioning). It's because like most big companies, Microsoft isn't interested in the low ROI projects, or the long-term profits, but in the short-term, large profit margin projects. And Windows Phone wasn't abandoned because it wasn't making money, not directly anyways. Mobile OS's are "free" and don't make money in the traditional sense, but rather through app store fees, advertising, pre-installed software deals, etc. It was abandoned because it wasn't gaining market share (and yes, that means, indirectly, it wasn't making money, but that was the root problem). It was too little, too late. They entered the space years after Google and Apple and still managed to have a far inferior product, seemingly not bothering to actually take in and appreciate what made the others so great and deciding to instead just try and throw something together without learning from and using already well-developed ideas from the others. I had a Windows Phone phone (just realized how awkward that phrase is, especially compared to iPhone or Android phone), and it was a mess. It failed to do the most basic stuff that Android could do for years, and couldn't even connect to a network properly.

Quote from: vertigo on March 20, 2021, 18:53:40

Quote from: Anonym on March 19, 2021, 15:41:31
This is the absolute worst time for Intel to start such a campaign, as this is the first time in many decades that Intel is objectively behind their competitors.

The M1s absolutely trounce Intel in battery runtime, performance, and heat dissipation. AMD still has upper hand on multicore performance, and wins hands down on pricing. Intel is an odd-ball here -- they definitely have a place in the PC world, but don't have any distinct advantages over the M1.

Intel: focus first on getting your sh*t together, only then picking a fight with the competition. At least in years gone there was a chance of winning (and very valid arguments that favored you), this time around it's just sad.

Not many decades, less than two, when the Athlon 64 was killing Intel, until Intel released their i-architecture, regained dominance, and went back to their old ways. And Intel is doing this marketing campaign now because they're behind. When they have the superior product, they don't bother with marketing. They're only doing it now because it's all they have. They can't sway people with performance, efficiency, price, etc, so they have to do so with marketing. It's how they operate.

Quote from: SouthPaw North on March 19, 2021, 19:22:55
The problem with Rosetta 2, of course, is Apple. Since Apple is anxious for developers to move on to their new platforms -- whether it was away from PowerPC or now from Intel Macs -- they don't keep their translation programs around for very long and users depending upon Rosetta are at their mercy.

So will Adobe get around to porting their apps to M1? Considering that (almost) all Mac users choose the better optimized Apple variants AND MacOS (in all of its flavors) has only about a 10% market share to begin with ... maybe (probably) not.

Point is, despite the snarky tone of this article, Intel is correct. ARM might be Apple's future but it's not the industry's future. IMO, MS made a huge mistake in making Office available on the M1 because they could have made the M1 Mac an unpleasant choice had they chosen not to do so; there's nothing even remotely close to Office on the Mac-side.

This makes me think of the whole Firefox mess with suddenly dropping support for XUL addons without first ensuring the new API could do the same things, leaving many addons that developers spent years on completely useless. For those that rely on those addons--which is many people, considering they're why many people, especially at first, started using Firefox--that seriously restricted its usefulness and made it so there was no longer a reason to stay with Firefox. If Apple abandons Rosetta, I wonder if that will play out the same.

As for MS making Office work on the Mac, I suspect they feel they have to. If they don't, people will use LibreOffice, and possibly others will come about, and MS will have real competition and will have to actually improve their product, something they desperately don't want to do. Not to mention the lost money on Office and other MS software, which I'm certain makes them much more money than the probably narrow profit margins on the Surface. In fact, I'm pretty sure MS would love if everybody switched to Apple and used Office, Outlook, etc, because they wouldn't have to maintain Windows anymore, which is a huge undertaking and probably makes much less money than their various software products, so they could let Apple do the "hard" work and just make money off everything else.

You are really naive if you think Windows doesnt makes money for Microsoft. Every single computer sold through OEM's has a Windows license attached to it, and more likely than not, an Office license is sold on those bundles, too. There's also the business side of things, which is huge, too. The only reason it looks like sidelined for now is because Nutella, their Indian CEO, has focused on Azure for everything, even for making his daily coffee cup. That, of course, will bite them on the long run, because important projects like Windows Phone were killed just because they werent making money, even though they were an important pillar for the future.

Quote from: Anonym on March 19, 2021, 15:41:31
This is the absolute worst time for Intel to start such a campaign, as this is the first time in many decades that Intel is objectively behind their competitors.

The M1s absolutely trounce Intel in battery runtime, performance, and heat dissipation. AMD still has upper hand on multicore performance, and wins hands down on pricing. Intel is an odd-ball here -- they definitely have a place in the PC world, but don't have any distinct advantages over the M1.

Intel: focus first on getting your sh*t together, only then picking a fight with the competition. At least in years gone there was a chance of winning (and very valid arguments that favored you), this time around it's just sad.

Not many decades, less than two, when the Athlon 64 was killing Intel, until Intel released their i-architecture, regained dominance, and went back to their old ways. And Intel is doing this marketing campaign now because they're behind. When they have the superior product, they don't bother with marketing. They're only doing it now because it's all they have. They can't sway people with performance, efficiency, price, etc, so they have to do so with marketing. It's how they operate.

Quote from: SouthPaw North on March 19, 2021, 19:22:55
The problem with Rosetta 2, of course, is Apple. Since Apple is anxious for developers to move on to their new platforms -- whether it was away from PowerPC or now from Intel Macs -- they don't keep their translation programs around for very long and users depending upon Rosetta are at their mercy.

So will Adobe get around to porting their apps to M1? Considering that (almost) all Mac users choose the better optimized Apple variants AND MacOS (in all of its flavors) has only about a 10% market share to begin with ... maybe (probably) not.

Point is, despite the snarky tone of this article, Intel is correct. ARM might be Apple's future but it's not the industry's future. IMO, MS made a huge mistake in making Office available on the M1 because they could have made the M1 Mac an unpleasant choice had they chosen not to do so; there's nothing even remotely close to Office on the Mac-side.

This makes me think of the whole Firefox mess with suddenly dropping support for XUL addons without first ensuring the new API could do the same things, leaving many addons that developers spent years on completely useless. For those that rely on those addons--which is many people, considering they're why many people, especially at first, started using Firefox--that seriously restricted its usefulness and made it so there was no longer a reason to stay with Firefox. If Apple abandons Rosetta, I wonder if that will play out the same.

As for MS making Office work on the Mac, I suspect they feel they have to. If they don't, people will use LibreOffice, and possibly others will come about, and MS will have real competition and will have to actually improve their product, something they desperately don't want to do. Not to mention the lost money on Office and other MS software, which I'm certain makes them much more money than the probably narrow profit margins on the Surface. In fact, I'm pretty sure MS would love if everybody switched to Apple and used Office, Outlook, etc, because they wouldn't have to maintain Windows anymore, which is a huge undertaking and probably makes much less money than their various software products, so they could let Apple do the "hard" work and just make money off everything else.

Quote from: SouthPaw North on March 19, 2021, 19:22:55
MS made a huge mistake in making Office available on the M1 because they could have made the M1 Mac an unpleasant choice had they chosen not to do so; there's nothing even remotely close to Office on the Mac-side.

I don't see how that would be in Microsoft's best interest. People buy Macs because they believe that is the superior platform. To be clear, they believe that Apple also makes superior software, as in the Safari cult.

If Microsoft didn't make an M1 optimized version of Office those Mac users would never (EVER) consider trying the PC side, because their confirmation biasis would kick-in and they would have all proof that Microsoft sucks (so why even try the ecosystem ruled by Microsoft?).

TL;DR as counter-intuitive as it may be, the best way to convince Mac users to try a PC and Windows is to have *the best* Mac software -- and then show that same software also exists elsewhere, with the undertone that it's even better there.

Quote from: Anon456 on March 20, 2021, 00:57:57
As long as MS is making good money by supporting Mac devices, i think they will continue their support in the future. Even if that means they support a platform which competes against Surface. It's all about money. It happens with large software vendors as well, including MS.

If you are an Office users, MS will get your money either way. But, if they could make Mac really unappealing, they would boost Windows sales and some of those people would choose Surface.

As long as MS is making good money by supporting Mac devices, i think they will continue their support in the future. Even if that means they support a platform which competes against Surface. It's all about money. It happens with large software vendors as well, including MS.

And Intel should get their @%$& together and spend more time on doing more engineering than useless marketing campaigns trying to downplay the competitors. At least AMD made huge progress, Apple is doing the same now and they did really well for their first try (M1). And that comes from someone who stayed away from Apple products for years.
Intel is starting to become the laughing stock of the industry.

The problem with Rosetta 2, of course, is Apple. Since Apple is anxious for developers to move on to their new platforms -- whether it was away from PowerPC or now from Intel Macs -- they don't keep their translation programs around for very long and users depending upon Rosetta are at their mercy.

So will Adobe get around to porting their apps to M1? Considering that (almost) all Mac users choose the better optimized Apple variants AND MacOS (in all of its flavors) has only about a 10% market share to begin with ... maybe (probably) not.

Point is, despite the snarky tone of this article, Intel is correct. ARM might be Apple's future but it's not the industry's future. IMO, MS made a huge mistake in making Office available on the M1 because they could have made the M1 Mac an unpleasant choice had they chosen not to do so; there's nothing even remotely close to Office on the Mac-side.

Quote from: kek on March 19, 2021, 14:59:22
Just imagine having both ARM & Qualcomm getting involved on PC market . That would be bad in the long run: Qualcomm might drop support for a certain CPU just like they do on Android, and lets not get started on those royalties and what not.

I'm curious to see how that plays out. How long is Microsoft going to support their devices with ARM processors.

Screams of desperation like their cherry picked benchmarks against M1 and AMD chips, lmao...

Sure, they still have market share which is shrinking. If you want to remain competitive, make better chips instead of relying a gimmick marketing. Pretty simple.

American car companies churned out garbage for decades thinking people would just buy them regardless and not hold them accountable because they were the only game in town. Then Toyota and Honda came along which were cheaper, more reliable and better quality. They tried to rely on marketing too before they realized, "We actually have to improve our product to be competitive."

Intel is in the same boat, only it hasn't been decades.

Sure... Intel has a slight lead in single core over AMD, but that is about it and it is an insignificant lead. Multi-core, price, power consumption? Lol...

M1's dominance isn't worth rehashing since it is pretty well established at this point. I'm someone who personally avoids Apple products, but the next gen even has me interested.

This is the absolute worst time for Intel to start such a campaign, as this is the first time in many decades that Intel is objectively behind their competitors.

The M1s absolutely trounce Intel in battery runtime, performance, and heat dissipation. AMD still has upper hand on multicore performance, and wins hands down on pricing. Intel is an odd-ball here -- they definitely have a place in the PC world, but don't have any distinct advantages over the M1.

Intel: focus first on getting your sh*t together, only then picking a fight with the competition. At least in years gone there was a chance of winning (and very valid arguments that favored you), this time around it's just sad.

Apple fans dont care about performance... They will buy the closed hardware-software ecosystem even if its 1000% slow.

Nah, I gotta give it to Intel on this round.
M1 is, as much performance as it has, just the first step for Apple to lock down PCs on their side.
Just imagine having both ARM & Qualcomm getting involved on PC market . That would be bad in the long run: Qualcomm might drop support for a certain CPU just like they do on Android, and lets not get started on those royalties and what not.
People tend to bash Intel for performance, but the true is, unless you are gaming (which usually requires a good GPU, rather than 16 cores), you will be fine with any of those Intel Evo models.

And speaking of performance, where is AMD? Do they not care about the x86 market? No wonder no OEM wants to stay with them in the long run