The end of the PC empire

Micron Technology, a large manufacturer of memory DIMMs for PCs, recently announced that it was exiting that business and is redirecting its efforts to memory components for AI server farms.

I think the impact of this announcement is not fully understood.

This change by Micron Technology indicates a larger shift in the industry: away from PCs and towards AI. Away from consumer PCs (desktops and laptops), and also office PCs. The PC, the king of the tech world for decades, has lost its crown.

The IBM PC, announced in 1981, legitimized the then-sputtering tech market for PCs. Before the IBM PC (and for some time after its introduction), PC makers such as Apple, Commodore, and Radio Shack all had to cobble their products together from components available from other systems. Instead of designing the display, the disk, the memory, etc., manufacturers had to survey the market for available components and then design a system with those components. Even the original IBM PC used a keyboard from IBM's System/23 desktop computer system.

But PCs were popular, and manufacturers couldn't ignore the market. They started designing components for PCs. When Microsoft introduced Windows and set hardware standards, the transition was complete: The PC was the center of attention. Standards were set (and followed). Supply chains were built to provide components that met those standards, with robust delivery schedules. One could easily buy components and build PCs.

Some thirty years later, component manufacturers are now looking at the market for AI servers, and they cannot ignore it. Which means that they will pay less attention to the PC market -- or ignore it completely, like Micron is doing.

(I'm rather skeptical of the AI boom, and doubtful that it is sustainable, but that is another question. Micron is placing its bets. I'm assuming that other companies will follow.)

What does this change mean for the PC market? At a minimum, manufacturers of PCs will find it harder to obtain components. Some components will become more expensive. Others will become impossible to find. PC manufacturers may have to submit custom orders for components, or find other sources. It is easy to predict that the price of PCs will rise.

But we may also see fewer PC models, and longer times between announcements of new models. We may see "limited run" announcements in which a new model is available for a limited period of time, or a single production run.

Apple will be somewhat immune to this effect, as they design most components for their PCs. Sourcing components (that is, getting someone else to build Apple-designed components in large quantities) should be possible because Apple's scale is such that one does not ignore it.

But other manufacturers (Dell, LG, HP, etc.) who have relied on the PC supply chain may find their business at risk.

For consumers, I think we will see fewer offerings: Fewer PC models, and fewer configuration options. (Which perhaps may not be such a bad thing. I am often overwhelmed by the number of possibilities when I look for a new PC.)

Apple hardware is outpacing Apple software

Something interesting about the new iPhone 16: the software isn't ready. Specifically, the AI ("Apple Intelligence") enhancements promised by Apple are still only that: promises.

Apple can develop hardware faster than it can develop software. That's a problem.

Apple has had this problem for a while. The M1 Mac computers first showed this problem. Apple delivered the computers, with their integrated system-on-chip design and more efficient processing, but delivered no software to take advantage of that processing.

It may be that Apple cares little for software. They sell computers -- hardware -- and not software. And it appears that Apple has "outsourced" the development of applications: it relies on third parties to build applications for Macs and iPhones. Oh, Apple delivers some core applications, such as utilities to configure the device, the App Store to install apps, and low-powered applications such as Pages and Numbers. But there is little beyond that.

Apple's software development focusses on the operating system and features for the device: MacOS and Pages for the Mac, iPadOS and Stage Manager for the iPad, iOS and Facetime and Maps for the iPhone. Apple builds no database systems, has lukewarm support and enhancements for the Xcode IDE, and few apps for the iPhone.

I suspect that Apple's ability to develop software has atrophied. Apple has concentrated its efforts on hardware (and done rather well) but has lost its way with software.

That explains the delay for Apple Intelligence on the iPhone. Apple spent a lot of time and effort on the project, and (I suspect) most of that was for the hardware. Updates to iOS for the new iPhone were (probably) fairly easy and routine. But the new stuff, the thing that needed a lot of work, was Apple Intelligence.

And it's late.

Thinking about the history of Apple's software, I cannot remember a similar big feature added by Apple. There is Facetime, which seems impressive but I think the iPhone app is rather simple and a lot of the work is in the back end and scalability of that back end. Stage Manager was (is) also rather simple. Even features of the Apple Watch such as fall detection and SOS calls are not that complex. Operating systems were not that difficult: The original iOS was new, but iPadOS is a fork of that and WatchOS is a fork of it too (I think).

Apple Intelligence is a large effort, a greenfield effort (no existing code), and one that is very different from past efforts. Perhaps it is not surprising that Apple is having difficulties.

I expect that Apple Intelligence will be delivered later than expected, and will have more bugs and problems than most Apple software.

I also expect to see more defects and exploits in Apple's operating systems. Operating systems are not particularly complex (they are as complex as one makes them) but development and maintenance requires discipline. One gets that discipline through constant development and constant monitoring of that development. It requires an appreciation of the importance of the software, and I'm not sure that Apple has that mindset.

If I'm right, we will see more and more problems with Apple software. (Slowly at first, and then all at once.) Recovery will require a change in Apple's management philosophy and probably the senior management team.

Apple's Pentium moment

In the 1990s, as the market shifted from the 80486 processor to the newer Pentium processor, Intel had a problem. On some Pentium processors, a certain mathematical operation was incorrect. It was called the "FDIV bug". What made this a problem was that the error was detected only after a significant number of Pentium processors had been sold inside PCs.

Now that Apple is designing its own processors (not just the M-series for Mac computers but also the A-series for phones and tablets), Apple faces the risk of a similar problem.

It's possible that Apple will have a rather embarrassing problem with one of its processors. The question is: how will Apple handle it?

In my not-so-happy prediction, the problem will be more than an exploit that allows data to be extracted from the protected vault in the processor, or memory to be read across processes. It will be more severe. It will be a problem with the instruction set, much like Intel's FDIV problem.

If we assume that the situation will be roughly the same as the Intel problem, then we will see:

- A new processor (or a set of new processors) from Apple
- These processors will have been released; they will be in at least one product and perhaps more
- The problem will be rare, but repeatable. If one creates a specific sequence, one can see the problem

Apple may be able to correct it with an update. If it is, then Apple's course is easy: an apology and an update. Apple may take some minor damage to its reputation, which will fade over time.

Or maybe the problem cannot be fixed with an update. The error might be "hard-coded" into the chip. Apple now has a few options, all of them bad but some less bad than others.

It can fix the problem, build a new set of processors, and then assemble new products and offer free replacements. Replacing the defective units is expensive for Apple, in the short term. It probably creates the most customer loyalty, which can improve revenue and profits in the longer term.

Apple could build a new set of products and instead of offering free replacements, offer high trade-in values for the older units. Less expensive in the short term, but less loyalty moving forward.

I'm not saying that this will happen. I'm saying that it may happen. I have no connection with Apple (other than as a customer) and no insight into their design process and quality assurance procedures.

Intel, when faced with the FDIV bug, handled it poorly. Yet Intel survives today, so its response was not fatal. Let's see what Apple does.

iPad gets an M4

There is a lot of speculation about Apple's forthcoming announcement. Much of it has to do with new models of the iPad and the use of a new M4 processor. Current models of iPad have M2 processors; Apple has not released an M3 iPad. People have tried to suss out the reason for Apple making such a jump.

Here's my guess: Apple is using the M4 processors because it has to. Or rather, using M3 processors in the new iPads has a cost that Apple doesn't want to pay.

I must say here that I am not employed by Apple, or connected with Apple, or with any of its suppliers. I have no contacts, no inside information. I'm looking at publicly available information and my experience with inventory management (which itself is quite limited).

My guess is based on the process of manufacturing processors. They are made in large batches, the larger the better ('better' as in 'lower unit costs').

Apple has a stock of M3 processors on hand. Possibly some outstanding orders for additional processors.

Apple also has projections for the sales of its various products, and therefore projections for the reduction of its inventory and the allocation of future orders. I'm pretty sure that Apple has gotten good at making these projections. It has projections for MacBooks, iMacs, iPhones, and iPads.

My guess is that Apple has enough M3 processors (on hand or in future orders) for the projected sales of MacBooks and iMacs, and that it does not have enough M3 processors for the sale of MacBooks, iMacs, and iPads.

Apple could increase its orders for M3 processors. But my second guess is that the minimum order quantity is much larger than the projected sales of iPads. (The iPad models have low sales numbers.) Therefore, ordering M3 processors for iPads means ordering a lot of M3 processors. Many more processors than are needed for iPad sales, and probably for the MacBook and iMac line. (The MacBooks and iMacs will switch to M4 processors soon, possibly in September.)

Apple doesn't want to over-order M3 processors and pay for processors that it will never use. Nor does it want to order a small batch, with the higher unit cost.

So instead, Apple puts M4 processors in iPads. The M4 production batches are just starting, and Apple can expect a number of future batches. Diverting a small number of M4 processors to the iPad is the least cost option here.

That's my idea for the reason of M4 processors in iPads. Not because Apple wants to use AI on the iPads, or make the iPad a platform suitable for development, or switch iPads to Mac OS. The decision is not driven by features, but instead by inventory costs.

Apple is ready for AI

I have been critical of Apple, and more specifically its designs with the M-series processors. My complaint is that the processors are too powerful, that even the simplest M1 processor is more than capable of handling tasks of an average user. (That is, someone who browses the web, reads and sends e-mail, and pays bills.)

The arrival of "AI" has changed my opinion. The engines that we call "artificial intelligence" require a great deal of processing, memory, and storage, which is just what the M-series processors have. Apple is ready to deploy AI on its next round of computers, powered by M4 processors. Those processors, merely speculative today, will most likely arrive in 2025 with companion hardware and software that includes AI-driven features.

Apple is well positioned for this. Their philosophy is to run everything locally. Applications run on the Mac, not in the cloud. Apps run on iPhones and iPads, not in the cloud. Apple can sell the benefits of AI combined with the benefits of privacy, as nothing travels across the internet.

This is different from the Windows world, which has seen applications and apps rely on resources in the cloud. Microsoft Office has been morphing, slowly into cloud-based applications. (There is a version one can install on a local PC, but I suspect that parts of that use cloud-based resources.)

I'm not sure how Microsoft and other application vendors will respond. Will they shift back to local processing? (Such a move would require a significant increase in processing power on the PC.) Will they continue to move to the cloud? (That will probably require additional security, and marketing, to convince users that their data is safe.)

Microsoft's response may be driven by the marketing offered by Apple. If Apple stresses privacy, Microsoft will (probably) counter with security for cloud-based applications. If Apple stresses performance, Microsoft may counter with cloud-based data centers and distributed processing.

In any case, it will be interesting to see the strategies that both companies use.

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.

The Apple Mac Pro is a Deluxe Coffee Maker

Why does Apple offer the Mac Pro? It's expensive and it offers little more than the Mac Studio. So why is it in the product line? Several have asked this question, and I have an idea.

But before discussing the Apple Mac Pro, I want to talk about coffee makers. Specifically the marketing of coffee makers.

Coffee makers are, at best, a commodity. One puts coffee, water, and electricity in, and after a short time coffee comes out. The quality of the coffee is, I believe, dependent on the coffee and the water, not the mechanism.

As bland as they are, there is one legend about coffee makers. It has to do with the marketing of coffee makers, and it goes something like this:

(Please note that I am working from a dim memory and much -- if not all -- of this legend may be wrong. But the idea will serve.)

A company that made and sold coffee makers was disappointed with sales, and wanted to increase its profits. They brought in a consultant to help. The consultant looked at the product line (there were two, a basic model and a fancy model), sales figures, sales locations, advertising, and various other things.  The consultant then met with the big-wigs at the company and presented recommendations.

The executives at the company were expecting to hear about marketing strategies, advertising, and perhaps pricing. And the consultant did provide recommendations along those lines.

"Add a third coffee maker to your product line," he said. "Make it a deluxe model with all of the features of your current models, and a few more, even features that people won't use. Sell it for an expensive price."

The executives were surprised to hear this. How could a third coffee maker, especially an expensive one, improve sales? Customers were not happy with the first two; a third would be just as bad.

"No," said the consultant. "The deluxe model will improve sales. It won't have many sales itself, but it will encourage people to buy the fancy (not deluxe) model. Right now your customers see that fancy model as expensive, and a poor value. A third model, with lots of features and a high price will convince customers that the fancy (not deluxe) model is a bargain."

The company tried this strategy ... and it worked! Just as the consultant said. Sales of the deluxe model were dismal, but sales of the (now) middle-tier fancy (not deluxe) model perked up. (Pun intended.)

We often forget that sales is about psychology as well as features.

Now let's consider Apple and the Mac Pro. The Mac Pro is not a good bargain. It performs only slightly better than the Mac Studio, yet it carries a much higher price tag. The Mac Pro has features that are ... questionable at best. (PCI slots that won't take graphics cards. Don't forget the wheels!)

Perhaps -- just perhaps -- Apple is using the Mac Pro to boost sales of the Mac Studio. Pricing the Mac Pro the way Apple does, it makes the Mac Studio a much more attractive option.

I suspect that if Apple had no Mac Pro and put the Mac Studio at the top of its product line, then a lot of people would argue for the Mac Mini as the better option. Those same people can make the same argument with the Mac Pro and convince themselves to buy the Mac Studio.

So maybe the Mac Pro isn't a Mac Pro at all. Maybe it is a deluxe coffee maker.

Unstoppable cannon balls, immovable posts, and Apple

In the mid 20th Century, Martin Gardner wrote a series of articles for Scientific American. His column was called "Mathematical Games"; the content was less math and more puzzles, riddles, and brain teasers. One such brain teaser went something like this:

"Assume that there are unstoppable cannon balls. These cannon balls are different from the normal variety in that once shot from a cannon, they do not stop. They push aside any object in their way. Also assume that there are immovable posts. These posts are different from the normal variety in that they do not move, for any reason. Now, what happens when an unstoppable cannon ball strikes an immovable post?"

Readers of Mr. Gardner's columns had to wait for answers, which appeared in the magazine's next issue. I won't make you, dear readers, wait that long. The answer to the riddle of the unstoppable cannon ball and the immovable post is simple: they cannot exist together. If one has an unstoppable cannon ball, then by definition the universe cannot have an immovable post. Or, if one has an immovable post, then again by definition one cannot have an unstoppable cannon ball.

While that answer may be disappointing, it has a certain wisdom. That wisdom may help Apple.

With the introduction of the M1 and M2 processor lines, Apple has entered into the realm of brain teasers. They don't have an unstoppable cannon ball or an immovable post, but they have built similar things in their product line.

The problem for Apple is the Mac Pro computer. The Mac Pro is Apple's premium computer; it sports the best processor, the fastest disks, the speediest memory, and -- of course -- the highest price tag. But it has one thing that other computers in Apple's product line no longer have: the ability to replace components. The Mac Pro is the only computer that let's the user replace memory, add disks, and add GPU cards. Apple computers (not phones, not tablets) in the past have allowed for upgrades. My vintage Apple Powerbook G4 allows one to replace memory, disk drives, and battery. The original Macbook allowed for the same.

Over the years, Apple changed their products and gradually removed the ability to change components. Today's Macbook laptops and non-Pro Mac computers are all fully encased; there is no way to open them and swap components. (At least not for the average user.)

The M1 and M2 system-on-chip processors make upgrades or changes impossible. Everything is on the chip: CPU, GPU, memory, storage, and more.

The benefit of the everything-on-one-chip design is performance. When components are housed in separate chips (such as CPU in one, memory in another, and GPU in yet another) then one must provide connecting wires. These wires (or traces on the system board) run from one component to the next. Driving the signals across these wires requires extra circuitry - dedicated transistors to raise the voltage of signals from the on-chip levels to the levels for the system board. Corresponding receiver circuits adapt the signals from board-level voltages to on-chip voltages. Each of those drivers and receivers slows the signal. (It's not much, but at the frequencies of today's computers, those small delays add to significant delays.)

The distance from one component to another also causes delays. Again, each delay is small, but over the billions of operations, they add up.

Which brings us back to the unstoppable cannon ball and the immovable post.

The older designs with discrete components are the immovable post. By itself, this is not a problem.

With the system-on-chip designs of M1 and M2, Apple has built, essentially, an unstoppable cannon ball. They have left the universe of swappable components and entered the universe of system-on-chip.

You cannot have both. You cannot have a computer that has all components on a single chip, and still allows for pieces to be upgraded.

Now, you can have some computers in your line with swappable components, and others with system-on-chip designs. In that sense, you can have both.

But you cannot have a single computer with both. A computer is either totally integrated or it has replaceable components. Keep in mind that the total integration design has the much better performance.

Apple wants its Mac Pro to have replaceable components and the best performance of the line. Apple wants the Mac Pro to be the top of its product line, with the best performance (and the priciest of price tags). I don't see a way to make this happen.

The performance of Apple's M2 Ultra processor is good. Really good. Better than the old, Intel-based, swappable component Mac Pro. A new, Intel-based, swappable component Mac Pro (using the latest processors and memory chips) could be faster than the old one, but not by much. It *may* be a little faster than the M2 Ultra, but it won't be *much* faster. It certainly won't be the flagship product that Apple wants.

Apple can build computers based on the M1 or M2 processor, and they will have top performance, but they won't have replaceable components. (The unstoppable cannon ball.) Apple can build computers with replaceable components (either Intel or AMD processors, or discrete processors based on the M1/M2 CPU) but they won't have the performance. (The immovable post.)

The idea of a top-tier computer system with replaceable parts is now a thing of the past. It probably has always been a thing of the past, as high performance computers have always integrated as much as possible. The notion of replaceable parts came from the hobbyist market and the original IBM PC, which wisely traded performance for flexibility. In the 1980s, when we had a poor understanding of what we wanted from computers, flexibility was the better choice.

Today, we have very definite ideas about our computers. We don't need to experiment with different video cards and memory configurations. We don't need to add network cards to some but not all computers. (Our manufacturers also have much better processes, and computer components are much more reliable. Computers run, and we have little need to replace a failed component.)

Apple could offer a Mac computer that has replaceable parts. It would be a low-end computer, not the high-end Mac Pro. I suspect that Apple will not make such a computer. It would be more expensive to produce, have a larger support effort (customers making mistakes and asking questions), and have limited appeal in the Apple fan base.

But Apple cannot build a high-end Mac Pro with replaceable components. It won't have the performance, and the Mac Pro is all about performance.

I think that Apple will build a Mac Pro, but with the "Extreme" variant of an M2 (or possibly M3) processor. The Mac Pro will be the only computer in Apple's line with the "Extreme" variant; other computers will use the plain, "Pro", "Max", or "Ultra" version of its processors. The new Mac Pro won't have replaceable parts, but it will have superior performance. People may be surprised, but I won't be one of them.

Where has the FUD gone?

A long time ago, the IT industry was subjected to FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) advertising campaigns.

FUD was a marketing strategy used by IBM. When competitors announce a new product (or worse, a breakthrough product), IBM would announce a similar product, but only in broad terms. The idea was to encourage people to wait for IBM's product, thereby reducing sales of the competing product. (It also created hype for the IBM product.)

To be effective, a FUD announcement had to describe a future product. It created doubt and uncertainty, and fear of making a bad choice of technology.

I haven't seen a FUD announcement for a long time.

They were common when IBM was the dominant manufacturer for computing equipment. The FUD campaign may have ended shortly after the introduction of the PS/2 (itself a product with a FUD announcement) line of computers. The market rejected the PS/2's Micro Channel Architecture, and accepted Compaq's ISA (the old PC standard architecture) with its 80368 processors. (Although the market did adopt IBM's VGA display and 1.44 MB hard "floppy" disk as standards.)

Compaq didn't use FUD announcements to take the lead from IBM. It delivered products, and its announcements for those products were specific. The message was "our products have this technology and you can buy them today".

There is one company today which has something similar to FUD announcements. But they are different from the old-style FUD announcements of yesteryear.

That company is Apple.

Apple is the one company that announces future products. It does it in a number of ways, from its annual marketing events to its reliable product schedule. (Everyone knows that Apple releases new iPhones in September, for example.)

Apple's FUD campaign seems to be accidental. I don't think that Apple is playing the same game that IBM played in the 1980s. IBM made FUD announcements to deter people from buying products from other companies. Apple may be doing the same thing, but instead of affecting other companies, I think it is Apple itself that suffers from these announcements.

Apple announcing a new processor for its MacBook line doesn't deter people from buying Windows laptops. They need laptops, they have already chosen Windows (for whatever reason) and they are going to buy them. Very few people change their purchasing decision from Windows to a yet-to-be-defined MacBook.

But a lot of Apple users defer their purchases. Many Apple users, in the middle of planning an upgrade, put off their purchase until the new MacBook was released.

Trade publications advise people to defer the purchase of Mac Minis, based on Apple's announcements and regular product schedule.

This behavior is the same as IBM's FUD from thirty years ago -- but with the difference that the (unintentional) target is the company itself.

It may be that Apple is aware of customers deferring their purchases. Perhaps Apple wants that behavior. After all, if Apple withheld new product information until the release of the product, those who recently purchased the older version may feel betrayed by Apple. It may be that Apple is forgoing immediate revenue in exchange for customer goodwill.

I'm happy to live in a world without FUD announcements. The IT world with FUD has challenges for planning, and a constant fear of missing out on important technology. The current world is a much more relaxed place. (That may sound odd to technology managers, but believe me, today's world is much better than the older one.)

The Macbook camera may always be second-rate

A recent article on MacWorld complained about Apple's "solution" of a webcam for MacBooks, namely using the superior camera in the iPhone.

It is true that iPhones have better cameras than MacBooks. But why?

I can think of no technical reason.

It's not that the iPhone camera won't fit in the MacBook. The MacBook has plenty of space. It is the iPhone that puts space at a premium.

It's not that the iPhone camera won't work with a MacBook processor. The iPhone camera works in the iPhone with its A12 (or is it A14?) processor. The MacBook has an M1 or an M2 processor, using very similar designs. Getting the iPhone camera to work with an M1 processor should be relatively easy.

It's not a matter of power. The MacBook has plenty of electricity. It is the iPhone that must be careful with power consumption.

It's not that the MacBook developers don't know how to properly configure the iPhone camera and get data from it. (The iPhone developers certainly know, and they are just down the hall.)

It's not a supply issue. iPhone sales dwarf MacBook sales (in units, as well as dollars). Diverting cameras from iPhones to MacBooks would probably not even show in inventory reports.

So let's say that the reason is not technical.

Then the reason must be non-technical. (Obviously.)

It could be that the MacBook project lead wants to use a specific camera for non-technical reasons. Pride, perhaps, or ego. Maybe the technical lead, on a former project, designed the camera that is used in the MacBook, and doesn't want to switch to someone else's camera. (I'm not convinced of this.)

Maybe Apple has a lot of already-purchased cameras and wants to use them, rather than discarding them. (I'm not believing this, either.)

I think the reason may be something else: marketing.

When Apple sells a MacBook with an inferior camera, and it provides the "Continuity Camera" service to allow an iPhone to be used as a camera for that MacBook, Apple has now given the customer a reason to purchase an iPhone. Or if the customer already has an iPhone, a reason to stay with the iPhone and not switch to a different brand.

It's not a nice idea. In fact, it's rather cynical: Apple deliberately providing a lesser experience in MacBooks for the purpose of selling more iPhones.

But it's the only one that fits.

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe Apple has a good technical reason for supplying inferior cameras in MacBooks.

I hope that I am. Because I want Apple to be a company that provides quality products, not inferior products carefully crafted to increase sales of other Apple products.

Apple wants only professional developers

Apple got itself some news this past week: It sent intimidating letters to the developers of older applications. Specifically, Apple threatened to expel old apps -- apps that had not been updated in three years -- from the iTunes App Store. (Or is it the Apple App Store?)

On the surface, this seems a reasonable approach. Apple has received complaints about the organization of the App Store, and the ability (or lack thereof) to find specific apps. By eliminating older apps, Apple can reduce the number of apps in the store and improve the user experience.

But Apple showed a bit of its thinking when it sent out the notice. It specified a grace period of 30 days. If the developers of an app submitted a new version, the app could remain in the App Store.

The period of 30 days calls my attention. I think it shows a lack of understanding on Apple's part. It shows that Apple thinks anyone can rebuild and resubmit their app in less than one month.

For professional teams, this seems a reasonable limit. Companies that develop apps should be familiar with the latest app requirements, have the latest tools, and have processes to release a new version of their app. Building apps is a full-time job, and they should be ready to go.

Individuals who build apps "for fun" are in a different situation. For them, building apps is not a full-time job. They probably have a different full-time job, and building apps is a side job. They don't spend all day working on app development, and they probably don't have the latest tools. (They may not even have the necessary equipment to run the compilers and packager necessary to meet Apple's requirements.) For them, the 30-day period is an impossible constraint.

Apple, in specifying that limit, showed that it does not understand the situation of casual developers. (Or, more ominously, deliberately chose to make life difficult for casual developers. I see no evidence of hostility, so I will credit this limit to ignorance.)

In either case (ignorance or malice) Apple thinks -- apparently -- that developers can spin out new versions of their apps quickly. In the long term, this will become true. Casual developers will give up on Apple and stop developing their apps. (They may also drop Apple's products. Why buy a phone that won't run their app?)

As casual developers leave the field, only the serious developers will remain. Those will be the commercial developers, or the professional developers who are paid by corporations.

That sets the Apple environment as a commercial platform, one that serves commercially-developed apps for commercial purposes. The Apple platform will have online banking, email, commercial games, video streaming, location tracking for auto insurance, and other apps in the realm of commerce. But it will have very few fun apps, very few apps built by individuals for enjoyment. Every app will have a purpose, and that purpose will be to make money, either directly or indirectly.

Yet it doesn't have to be this way. Apple has an alternative, if they want it.

Right now, the Apple App Store is a single store. Apple could change that, splitting the App Store into multiple stores, or a single store with sections. One section could be for the commercial apps and another section for the amateur apps. The commercial section will have the tighter restrictions that Apple wants to ensure a good experience for users (updated apps, recent APIs, etc.) and the amateur section will hold the casually-built apps. But the two sections are not equal: apps in the commercial section are allowed to use API calls for payments, and apps in the amateur section are not. (Apple could limit other APIs too, such as biometrics or advertising.)

A two-tiered approach to the App Store gives the developers of iOS apps a choice: play in the pro league, or play in the amateur league. It may be an approach worth considering.

Apple has a software problem

Apple has a problem. Specifically, Apple has a software problem. More specifically, Apple has a problem between its hardware and its software. The problem is that Apple's hardware is getting bigger and more powerful at a much faster rate than its software.

Why is better hardware a problem? By itself, better hardware isn't a problem. But hardware doesn't exist by itself -- we use hardware with software. Faster, more powerful hardware requires bigger, more capable software.

One might think that fast hardware is a good thing, regardless of software. Faster hardware runs software faster, right? And faster is always a good thing, right? Well, not always.

For software that operates on a large set of data, such that the user is waiting for the result, yes, faster hardware is better. But faster hardware is only better if the user is waiting. Software that operates in "batch mode" or with limited interaction with the user is improved with better hardware. But software that interacts with the user, software that must wait for the user to do something, isn't necessarily improved.

Consider the word processor, a venerable tool that has been with us since the introduction of the personal computer. Word processors spend most of their time waiting for the user to press a key. This was true even with computers from prior to the IBM PC. In the forty-odd years since, hardware has gotten much, much faster but word processors have not gotten much more complicated. (There was a significant increase in complexity when we shifted from DOS and its character-based display and printing to Windows and graphics-based display and printing, but very little otherwise.)

The user experience for word processors has changed little in that time. Faster hardware has not improved the experience. If we limited computers to word processors, there would be no need for a processor more powerful than the Intel 80386. By extension, if you needed a computer for word processing (and nothing else) today's bottom-of-the-line, cheap, minimal computer would be more than enough for you. There is no point in spending on a premium computer (or even a mediocre one) because the minimal computer can do the job adequately.

The same logic applies to spreadsheets. And e-mail. And web browsers. Computers have gotten better faster than these programs and their data have gotten bigger.

The computers I use for my day-to-day and even unusual tasks are old PCs, ranging from five to twenty years in age. All of them are fast enough for what I need to do. An aged Dell Inspiron N5010 runs Windows 10 and lets me use Zoom and Teams to join virtual meetings. I could replace it with a modern laptop, but the experience would be the same! Why should I bother?

A premium computer is needed only for those tasks that perform complex operations on  large sets of data. And this is where Apple fails to provide the tools to justify its powerful (and expensive) hardware.

Apple is focussed on hardware, and it does a terrific job of designing and manufacturing powerful computers. But software is another story. Apple develops applications and then seems to lose interest in them. It built Pages, Numbers, and Keynote, and has made precious few improvements -- other than recompiling for ARM processors, or adding support for things like AirPlay. It hasn't added features.

The same goes for applications such as GarageBand, iTunes, and FaceTime. Even Xcode.

Apple has even let utilities such as grep and sed in MacOS (excuse me, "mac os". Or is it "macos"?) are aging with no updates. The corresponding GNU utilities have been modified and improved in various ways, to the point that developers now recommend the installation of the GNU utilities on Apple computers.

Apple may be waiting for others to build the applications that will take advantage of the latest Mac computers. I'm not sure that many will want to do that.

Building applications to leverage the new Apple processors may seem a no-brainer. But there are a number of disincentives.

First, Apple may build their own version of the application, and compete with the vendor. Independent vendors may be reluctant to enter a market when Apple is a possible competitor.

Second, developing applications to take advantage of the M1 architecture requires a lot of time and effort. The application must be multithreaded -- single-threaded applications cannot fully leverage the multiple cores on the M1. Designing, coding, and testing such an application is a lot of work.

Third, the market is limited. Applications developed to take advantage of the M1 processor are, well, developed for the M1 processor. They won't run on Windows PCs. You can't cross-build to run on Windows PCs, because PC processors are much slower than the Apple processors. The set of potential customers is limited to those who have the upper-end Apple computers. That's a small market (compared to Windows) and the potential revenue may not cover the development costs.

That is an intimidating set of disincentives.

So if Apple isn't building applications to leverage the upper-end Macs, and third-party developers aren't building applications to leverage upper-end Macs, then ... no one is building them! The result being that there are no applications (or very few) to take advantage of the higher-end processors.

I expect sales of the M1-based Macs to be robust, for a short time. But as people realize that their experience has not improved (except, perhaps for "buttery smooth" graphics) they will hesitate for the next round of new Macs (and iPads, and iPhones). As customers weigh the benefits and costs of new hardware, some will decide that their current hardware is good enough. (Just as my 15-year-old PCs are good enough for my simple word processing and spreadsheet needs.) If Apple introduces newer systems with even faster processors, more people will look at the price tags and decide to wait before upgrading.

Apple is set up to learn an important lesson: High-performance hardware is not enough. One needs the software to offer solutions to customers. Apple must work on its software.

About those new Macs

Apple's presentation today talks about three new products: the new iPhone SE, the new iPad Air, and the new Mac Studio desktop (with a new display, so maybe that is four new products).

The iPhone SE is pretty much what you would expect in a low-end Apple phone. It still uses the A-series chips.

The iPad Air uses an M-series chip, and that is interesting. Using the M-series chip brings the iPad Air closer to the Mac line of computers. I expect that, in the somewhat-distant future, Apple will replace the iMac with the iPad line. Apple already lets one run iPhone and iPad apps on Macbooks; some day Apple may let an M-series Mac run apps for an M-series iPad.

The new M1 Ultra chip and the new Apple Studio desktop and display received the most time in the presentation.

The M1 Ultra chip is a pairing of two M1 Max chips. Instead of simply placing two M1 Max chips on a board, Apple has connected them at the chip level. The connection allows for rapid transfer of data, and results in a powerful processor.

Interestingly, the M1 Ultra design does not follow the pattern of the M1, M1 Pro, and M1 Max chips, which are expansions of the base model. Apple may have run into difficulties in building a single-chip successor to the M1 Max. The pairing of two M1 Max chips feels like a compromise, getting a faster processor on an aggressive schedule.

The Mac Studio is a computer that I was expecting: an expanded version of the Mac Mini. The Mac Studio  has a beefier processor, more memory, and more ports than the Mac Mini, but the same basic design. The Mac Studio is simply a big brother to the Mac Mini, and nothing like the Mac Pro.

Apple hinted at a replacement for the Mac Pro, and my prediction for its successor stands. That is, I expect the replacement for the Mac Pro to be a more powerful Mac Mini (or a more powerful Mac Studio). It will not be like the current Mac Pro with slots for GPU cards. (There is no point, as the built-in GPU of the M1 processor provides more computational power than an external card.) It will most certainly have a processor more powerful than the M1 Ultra. That processor may be a double M1 Ultra (or four M1 Pro processor ganged together); what Apple calls it is anyone's guess. ("M1 Double Ultra"? "M1 Ultra Max"? "M1 Ultravox"?)

The new Mac Studio is a processor for specific purposes. Apple's presentation focussed on video applications, which are of interest to a limited market. For typical PC users who work in the pedestrian world of documents and spreadsheets, the new Mac Studio offers little -- the low-end Mac systems are capable, and additional processing power is simply wasted as the computer waits for the user.

Apple's presentation, and its concentration on video applications, shows a blind spot in their thinking. Apple made no announcements about changes to operating systems or application software. Another company, when announcing more powerful hardware, would also introduce more powerful software that takes advantage of that hardware. Apple could have introduced improved versions of applications such as Pages and Numbers, or features to share processing among Apple devices, or AI-like capabilities for improved security and privacy... but they did not. Perhaps they have those changes lined up for a future presentation, but I suspect that they simply don't have them. Their thinking seems to be to wow their customers with hardware alone. That, I think, may be a mistake.

Something is rotten in the state of Apple

Apple recently announced a set of (rather large) retention payments for some engineers. (I assume that these are senior engineers.) The payments are in the form of restricted stock units which vest over a four-year period. Apple is making these payments to prevent employees from leaving for other companies. It's not clear, but these appear to be one-time payments. (That is, this is not a new, recurring payment to employees.)

This is not a good idea.

If employees are leaving Apple, that is a problem. And the problem has two (for this post) possible causes: employees are unhappy with wages, or employees are unhappy with something else.

If employees are unhappy with wages, it is quite likely that wages are not in line with other companies. If that is the problem, then the correct action is to adjust wages to competitive levels. A one-time payment (even spread over years) will not fix the problem.

I tend to think that Apple's wages are competitive.

If employees are unhappy with something other than wages, then a monetary payment does not fix the problem. Employees could he unhappy about many things: working conditions, opportunities to work on fun projects, opportunities for professional growth, political involvement of the company, or projects deemed unethical by employees. (And more!)

Monetary compensation does not fix any of those problems. The problems remain, and the unhappiness of employees remains.

I suspect that in the middle of the COVID-19 pandemic, Apple requested (demanded?) that employees return to the office, and a number of employees -- senior-level employees -- refused. Not only did they refuse, they refused with "and if you make me return to the office, I will leave Apple and work for someone else". (This is all speculation. I am not employed by Apple, nor have I spoken with any Apple employees.)

Apple has not one but two problems.

The first problem is that employees are leaving, and Apple has addressed that problem with bonus payments.

The second problem is that Apple thinks this tactic is a good one. (They must think it is a good idea. Otherwise they would not have done it.)

Payments of this type must have been discussed at the highest levels of Apple. I suspect that even members of the board of directors were consulted. Did anyone object to these payments?

In the end, Apple decided to pay employees to address issues that are not related to compensation. It is the wrong solution to the problem, and it will probably make the situation worse. Bonus payments were offered to some employees. The other employees will resent that. Bonus payments vest over four years. After the last payment, employees who were given these payments will see their compensation drop significantly. They may resent that.

Apple has a problem. Retention payments don't address the underlying issues. Is Apple addressing the underlying issues? Possibly. (Apple would not advertise that.)

Let's see what happens at Apple over the next year. I expect to hear about changes in the organization, with the resignations of several senior executives.

I also expect that Apple will continue on its current course for its products and services. Those are sound, and have a good reputation with customers. I see no need to change them, other than the typical improvements Apple makes each year.

Moving fast and going far are not the same thing

There is an old saying: If you want to go fast, go alone; if you want to go far, go in a group.

One significant difference between Apple and Microsoft is that Apple manages product lines and Microsoft manages an ecosystem. This difference is significant. Apple is, essentially, moving alone. It can (now) design its own hardware and software. Apple does still need raw materials, fabrication for its chips, manufacture of its cases and boxes, and assembly of components into finished goods. But Apple deals with two types of entities: suppliers (the companies that supply raw materials, chips, etc.) and customers (the people and companies that purchase computers and services).

Microsoft, in contrast, lives in an ecosystem that includes suppliers, PC manufacturers, developers, and customers (both individual and organizational). While Microsoft does design its Surface tablets and laptops, those tablets and laptops are a small part of the larger market. The laptops and desktops made by Dell, Lenovo, HP, and others are a large portion of the market.

Apple can move quickly, changing its processors from Intel to Apple-designed ARM in less than two years. Microsoft, on the other hand, must move more cautiously. It cannot dictate that Windows will shift from Intel to ARM because Microsoft does not control the manufacturers of PCs.

If Microsoft wants to shift personal computers from the current designs of discrete components to system-on-chip designs (and I believe that they do) then Microsoft must persuade the rest of the ecosystem to move in that direction. Such persuasion is not easy -- PC makers have lots invested in the current designs, and are familiar with gradual changes to improve PCs. For the past three decades, Microsoft has guided PC design through specifications that allow PCs to run Windows, and those specification have changed gradually: faster processors here, faster buss connections there, faster memory at some times, better interfaces to graphics displays at other times. The evolution of personal computers has been a slow, predictable process, with changes that can be absorbed into the manufacturing processes of the PC makers.

The Microsoft "empire" of PC design has been, for all intents and purposes, successful. For thirty years we have benefitted from computers in the office and in the home, and those computers have (for the most part) been usable and reliable.

Apple benefitted from that PC design too. The Intel-based Mac and MacBook computers were designed in the gravity field of Windows. Those Mac computers were Windows PCs, capable of running Windows (and Linux) because they used the same processors, video chips, and buss interfaces as Windows PCs. They had to use those chips; custom chips would be too expensive and risky to make.

Apple has now left that empire. It is free of the "center of gravity" that Windows provides in the market. Apple can now design its own processor, its own video chips, its own memory, its own storage. Apple is free! Free to move in any direction it likes, free to design any computer it wants.

I predict that Apple computers will move in their own direction, away from the standard design for Windows PCs. Each new generation of Apple computers will be less and less "Windows compatible". It will be harder and harder to run Windows (or Linux) on Apple hardware.

Microsoft has a new challenge now. They must answer Apple's latest M1 (and M2) system-on-chip designs. But they cannot upend the ecosystem. Nor can they abandon Intel and shift everything to ARM designs. Apple has leveraged its experience with its 'A' series chips in phones to build the 'M' series chips for computers. Microsoft doesn't have that experience, but it has something Apple doesn't: an ecosystem.

I predict that Microsoft will form alliances with other companies to build system-on-chip designs. Probably with IBM, to leverage virtual machine technology (and patents) and possibly Intel to leverage chip fabrication. (Intel recently announced that it was open to sharing its fabrication plants for non-Intel designs.)

[I hold stock in both Microsoft and IBM. That probably biases my view.]

Microsoft needs to build experience with system-on-chip designs, and alliances can provide that experience. But alliances require time, so I'm not expecting an announcement from Microsoft right away. The first system-on-chip designs may be tablets and simple laptops, possibly competing with Chromebooks. Those first simple laptops may take two years of negotiation, experimentation, design, assembly, and testing before anything is ready for market. (And even then, they may have a few problems.)

I think Microsoft can achieve the goal of system-on-chip designs. I think that they will do it with the combined effort of multiple companies. I think it will take time, and the very first products may be disappointing. But in the long run, I think Microsoft can succeed.

If you want to move fast, go alone; if you want to go far, go in a group.

Apple all by themselves

Apple is in a unique position. At least for personal computers.

For the first time in the history of personal computers, Apple is designing the entire device, from hardware to software.

The earliest personal computers (the TRS-80, the Commodore PET, and even the Apple I and Apple II) were built with components made by other manufacturers. Processors, memory, displays, disk drives, and even power supplies were assembled into personal computers. The Apple II used the 6502 processor made by MOS Technologies (and second-sourced by others). The TRS-80 used Zilog's Z-80 processor. The original IBM PC used the 8088 processor from Intel, standard memory chips, and floppy disks (when it had them) from Tandem.

The manufacturers of personal computers was always about using "off the shelf" components to build a PC. It made sense, as it allowed a small company to sell computers and let other companies specialize in components.

Now, Apple is building their own system-on-a-chip that contains processor, memory, graphics processor, and storage. Apple designs the all of the electronics, the case, the power supply, and the display screen. Apple writes their own operating system and application programs.

Such a thing has never been seen with personal computers.

Which is not to day that such a thing has never been seen in computing. It has.

Prior to personal computers, the "we build everything" model was prevalent in computing. IBM used it for their mainframes. DEC used it for their minicomputers.

We cannot make comparisons between the mainframe age and the current age of computing. The markets are too different, the customers are too different, and the computers are too different. The fact that Apple designs everything about its computers is a happy correspondence to that earlier age.

But perhaps we can make some guesses about what Apple will do next.

For starters, they have a lot of control over the design of new products. In the old system, Apple had to use whatever processors or GPUs were available. The designs offered by "specialists" acted as a center of gravity for the market -- anyone using AMD's GPUs was working in a similar space.

Apple is no longer dependent on the designs of others. They do not have to use processors from Intel, or GPUs from AMD, or memory from another maker. Thus, Apple is able to implement its own designs. Those designs, we can reasonably expect, will deviate from the "center of gravity" of the old system. Apple can chart its own path.

Secondly, we can expect that Apple will design its products to help Apple. In particular, Apple will probably add diagnostics to its products, diagnostics that only Apple software will be able to access. The recent M1 MacBook Pro computers are suffering from memory allocation problems; we can expect that Apple will resolve this, at first with software, and later with enhancements to hardware to assist the software in identifying and reporting such issues.

Third, Apple can introduce new products on their schedule. Rather than wait for Intel or AMD to introduce new hardware, Apple can work on new hardware and release products when they are ready. I expect that Apple will release new Mac and MacBook computers every year -- although not every model. Perhaps Apple will use a three-year cycle, with updates to MacBook Air and iMac in one year, MacBook Pro and iMac Pro in a second year, and MacBook Mini and MacBook Max in the third year. (In the fourth year, Apple repeats with updates to MacBook Air and iMac.)

We should note that Apple is not completely independent. While they design the hardware, they do not manufacture it. Apple relies on outside companies to fabricate chips, build components, and assemble those components into complete units. Will Apple build its own fabrication plants? Or buy existing ones? I suspect not. Said plants are large and expensive (event for Apple's budget) and come with lots of environment issues. I expect Apple to leave that work to specialists.

All in all, Apple is in a good position to design its computers and sell them on its schedule.

The important question is: Will those computers be useful to their customers?

That's an idea for another time.

System-on-chips for everyone!

Apple has demonstrated that the system-on-chip design (seen in their new MacBooks, iMacs, and Mac Minis) is popular.

What does system-on-chip design mean for other forms of computing? Will other manufacturers adopt that design?

An obvious market for system-on-chip design is Chromebooks. (If they are not using it already.) Many Chromebooks already use ARM processors (others use Intel) and moving the ARM-based Chromebooks to ARM-based system-on-chip design is fairly straightforward. Chromebooks also have a narrow design specification, controlled by Google, which makes a system-on-chip design feasible. Google limits the variation of Chromebooks, so it may be that the entire Chromebook market could be served with three (or possibly four) distinct designs.

Chromebooks would benefit from system-on-chip designs in two ways: lower cost and higher performance. One may think performance is unimportant to Chromebooks because Chromebooks are merely hosts for the Chrome browser, but that is not true. The Chrome browser (indeed, any modern browser) must do a lot, from rendering HTML to running JavaScript to playing audio and video. They must also handle keystrokes and focus, tasks normally associated with an operating systems's window manager. In addition, browsers must now execute web-assembly (WASM) for some applications. Browsers are complex critters.

Google also has their eyes on games, and improved performance will allow more Chromebooks to run advanced games.

I think we can safely assume that Chromebooks will move to system-on-chip designs.

What about Windows PCs? Will they change to system-on-chip designs? Here I think the answer is not so obvious.

Microsoft sets hardware specifications for Windows. If you want to build a PC that runs Windows, you have to conform to those specifications. It is quite possible that Microsoft will design their own system-on-chip for PCs and use them in Microsoft's own Surface tablets and laptops. It is possible that they will make the design available to other manufacturers (Dell, Lenovo, etc.). Such a move would make it easier to build PCs that conform to Microsoft's specifications.

A system-on-chip design would possibly split designs for PCs into two groups: system-on-chip in one group and traditional discrete components in the other. System-on-chip designs work poorly with expansion slots, so PCs that use such a design would probably have no expansion slots -- not even one for a GPU. But many folks want GPUs, so they will prefer traditional designs. We may see a split market for Windows PCs, with customizable PCs using discrete components and non-upgradable PCs (similar to Chromebooks and Macbooks) using system-on-chip designs.

Such a split has already occurred in the Windows PC market. Laptop PCs tend to have limited options for upgrades (if any). Small desktop PCs also have limited options. Large desktops are the computers that still have expansion slots; these are the computers that let the owner replace components such as RAM and storage.

I think system-on-chip designs are the way of the future for most of our computers (laptops, desktops, phones, etc.). I think we'll see better performance, lower cost, and improved reliability. It's a move in a good direction.

What do we do about Mac Pro?

In all the excitement about Apple's new MacBook Pro computers, we have forgotten an obscure member of the Macintosh family: The Mac Pro.

I haven't looked carefully at the specifications, but it seems that the new MacBook Pro, equipped with the M1 Max processor and lots of memory, surpasses the performance of the Mac Pro computer.

And thinking about the Mac Pro, it seems that Apple has created a bit of a problem for itself. Or at least for the Mac Pro computer.

The Mac Pro is the one computer in Apple's product line that offers expansion slots. The other computers (MacBook, Mac Mini, and iMac) are slotless. The M1 versions of those computers are 'fixed' in that they cannot be upgraded with new hardware. What you buy is what you get... for the life of the computer.

Apple's system-on-a-chip design of the M1, M1 Pro, and M1 Max integrate everything into that chip. There are no off-chip functions. It contains CPU, GPU, memory, disk, and a handful of extra things. Computers based on M1 designs have no expansion slots.

But the Mac Pro still has expansion slots, slots that don't play well with system-on-chip designs.

What does Apple do about the Mac Pro?

I see three possible futures:

First, Apple may design an M1 system chip that supports expansion slots. I see little point to this, as the primary use of expansion slots is for GPUs, and Apple's integrated GPU provides superior performance. One would do better to purchase a MacBook Pro with the M1 Max chip.

Second, Apple may keep the Mac Pro with its current arrangement, either with an Intel processor or an ARM processor, and the expansion slots for external GPU cards. But I see little point to this, for the same reason as above: the MacBook Pro with the M1 Max processor is the better deal.

A third possibility is that Apple designs a new system-chip for the Mac Pro, one that doesn't support expansion slots but provides performance that surpasses the M1 Max. Such a design would be quite similar to the Mac Mini: a small, non-expandable block that requires keyboard, mouse, and display. (The Mac Mini Pro? The Mac Mini Max?)

That last option is equivalent to Apple discontinuing the Mac Pro. I think that is a definite possibility. The new M1 Max system-chip may be enough for even the hungriest of power users. The Mac Mini may be the new Mac Pro.

What Apple's new products tell us about Apple

Next Monday, Apple will make an announcement. Many expect a new version of the MacBook Pro, one based on a new M1X system-on-a-chip.

I have some ideas too.

I expect a new Macbook Pro, based on the M1X. I also expect that the announcement will focus on graphics: pictures, videos, and especially games.

I do expect some discussion of performance. Will Apple compare the new Macbook to its previous model? Or will it compare the new Macbook Pro to a Windows PC?

If the latter, will Apple compare it to top-of-the-line PCs? Or to comparably priced PCs? Or to "the most popular PCs on the market"? Each is a different comparison. Which Apple picks will tell us how Apple views competition to the Macbook. If they compare to top-of-the-line PCs, they signal performance. If they compare to comparably priced PCs, they signal value. If Apple compares its top laptop to "the most popular PCs", Apple signals... that it is selling on emotion and not reason.

Let's see what Apple does, and says, in this announcement.