Apple M3

I found Apple's presentation "Scary Fast" to be not scary but somewhat disturbing. Or perhaps "disappointing" is the better adjective.

Apple's M3 processors are impressive, but perhaps not as impressive as the "Scary Fast" presentation implies. I'm not saying that Apple is lying or presenting false information, but they are picking the information very carefully.

Apple compares the M3 to the M1 processor, and the MacBook Pro (with an M3 Pro) to the fastest Intel-based MacBook.

I find those comparisons odd. Why compare the M3 to the old M1 processor? Why not compare it to the M2. And comparing an M3-based MacBook Pro to an Intel-based MacBook seems even odder. (Is anyone still using Intel-based MacBooks? Other than me?)

But Apple's cherry-picking for performance comparisons is not the major disappointment.

The big issue, the one issue that I think Apple misses completely, is that its hardware is outrunning its software. Apple's M3 processors are fast and capable, but so were Apple's M2 processors. The M2 processors were so powerful that the low-end, plain M2 processors was more than enough for almost everyone. If I were equipping an office with Apple devices, I would give everyone a MacBook Air, or possibly a low-end MacBook Pro. Those are enough for just about all typical office work. (Folks editing video or running large test sets might benefit from the higher processors, but they are a small portion of the audience.)

Apple's hardware is faster than everyone else's, just as high-end sports cars are faster than the average automobile. But for most people, average automobiles are good enough. Most people don't want the expenses of a high-end sports car, nor can they take advantage of the speed. Apple's M3 processors are fast, but pure speed translates into performance for only a few users. It is quite likely that today (that is, with no M3 processors in the field) most people have computers that are more than fast enough for their needs.

Apple concentrates on hardware and invests little in a number of other areas:

- Cloud-based computing

- Artificial intelligence

- Design of programming languages, multi-threaded applications, parallel tasks, and coordination of distinct processes

- Programming tools, from command-line tools to IDEs

- Automated testing of GUI programs

- Voice recognition

That's not to say that Apple has done nothing in these areas. My point is that Apple has done a small amount and relies on others to do the work in these areas. And that work isn't getting done. Apple's obsession with hardware is costing them opportunities in these areas. It holds Apple back, preventing it from growing the technology. It also holds us back, because we have to wait for Apple.

Apple, TSMC, and 3nm chips

The news from a few months back is that Apple has purchased all of TSMC's capacity for 3nm chips for one year. That's a pretty impressive deal. It gives Apple exclusive access to TSMC's latest chip technology, locking out all other PC manufacturers. It also shows that Apple is planning on a lot of sales in the coming year.

Yet I see a dark side to this arrangement.

First, it places a cap on Apple's sales in the year. Apple has "maxed out" its chip source; it cannot get more from TSMC. Apple's growth is now constrained by TSMC's growth, which has been less than planned. (TSMC's new fabrication plant in Arizona has been delayed and cannot produce multi-chip assemblies.)

With a cap on production, Apple must choose carefully which chips it wants from TSMC. What percentage will be M2 chips? M2 Pro chips? A17 chips for iPhones? If Apple guesses wrong, it could have a lot of unsold inventory for one product and be unable to meet sales demand for another.

Second, it makes allies of PC manufacturers (anyone who isn't Apple) and chip manufacturers (anyone who isn't TSMC). TSMC may have difficulty winning business from Lenovo, Dell, and even Microsoft. The arrangement probably doesn't help Apple's relationships with Intel and Samsung, either.

Third, it shows that Apple's latest processors are not second-sourced. (Second-sourcing was a common practice in the 1980s. It reduced risk to the customer and to the primary manufacturer.) Not having a second source for its processors means that any disruption to manufacturing will directly the finished products. If TSMC cannot deliver, Apple has nowhere to turn.

It may be that Apple's chips cannot be second-sourced. I don't know the details, but it may be that Apple provided specifications for the chips, and TSMC designed the chip layout. If that is the case, then it is most likely that TSMC owns the layouts, not Apple, and for Apple to get chips from Intel or Samsung those companies would have to start with the specifications and design their own chips. That's a lengthy process, and might take longer than the expected lifetime of the chips. (The M1 chip is all but obsolete, and the M3 is already replacing the M2 chip. The "A" series chips have similarly rapid turnover.)

So Apple purchasing all of TSMC's capacity for a year sounds impressive -- and it is -- but it also reveals weaknesses in Apple's position.