This includes a massive number of corporate desktops which often Apple doesn't really compete with.
> The cheapest desktop option is $6000 with an 8 core cpu or 8000 with a 16 core.
?? The Mac mini is $600 with an M1 which is likely a far faster computer than most $600 Windows desktop computers. Likely significantly faster.
I don't think Apple is going to eat Windows alive, too many businesses have massive piles of Windows apps. I do see the potential Apple to increase market share significantly though.
Iphone helped clarify what a good interface looked like while prices came down and performance went up positioning themselves well as a product category that was already a thing became mainstream.
Laptops aren't a new category and the majority will continue to buy something other than apple in large part because of the price.
The iPhone was mid-range at launch, $499 versus $730 for a contemporary smartphone like the N95
Blackberry was the competing “smart” phone [1] and the newest releases were we under half the price of iPhone w the same 2-year discount.
I had the blackberry curve myself at that time and iPhone seemed way high-priced.
[1] https://techcrunch.com/2007/07/25/iphone-v-blackberry-side-b...
This is still a niche.
I wouldn’t expect them to sell their cpus to others.
It’s weird though that they’re so vertically integrated and able to push performance as high as they have. I really enjoy my Linux system so I’m going to keep on doing that.
No, it is $600 with an 8 core M1 chip, the new mac mini. Also the iMac is arguably a desktop option, even if not really upgradeable.
And also with RAM and SSD idiotically soldered in so 2 years later you need to spend another $6000, while a couple weeks ago I spent a grand total of $400 to upgrade my 2TB SSD to 4TB.
- Given that you can't add ram after the fact and 256GB is anemic the cheapest laptop that is a reasonable choice is $1400.
- The cheapest desktop option is $6000 with an 8 core cpu or 8000 with a 16 core.
- The average end user spends $700 on a computer
- We literally have marketing numbers and a worthless synthetic benchmark.
I think it entirely fair to say that the new macs are liable to be fantastic machines but there is no reason to believe that the advent of apple cpu macs marks the end of open hardware. Were you expecting them to sell their cpus to the makers of the cheap computers most people actually buy?