And do what? They make money selling products to apple users. They probably already sell to PC if they are interested in it. Not so much stockholm syndrome, but some sort of modern sharecropper development system for sure.

Every once in a while, public opinion actually gets through to them. It only took months to years of clowning and a viral post for them to finally fix their corner inconsistencies.

> It's so bad Apple can just abort M6 Pro and Max and reuse the M5 generation for an extra year because why not, the most powerful alternatives are still playing catch-up with the base M4.

The rumor is that Apple decided to put the engineering effort into the M7 series to make a bigger leap.

Engineering resources are finite. Expecting a company to release every version of every chip at every generation is not optimal. Some times it's better to put the development effort into a bigger goal that takes longer.

I wouldn't call that bad. They're being smart about development strategies instead of forcing everything into arbitrary release goals to satsify marketing and shareholders.

That's what I want from companies who development my products. This is a good thing.

Apple's work is cut out for them; M7 and M8 desperately need a better GPU. These SOCs put up fantastically efficient single-core performance, but have some of the worst GPU compute efficiency you can buy. It also needs a better interconnect than RDMA, since Thunderbolt is snail-speed when networking several iGPUs together.

Apple Silicon is a mirror into the Mac's decision paralysis. Apple wants to unify the Mac power users and iPhone casuals onto one silicon backbone, but can't decide who gets the short end of the stick. Tim Cook especially couldn't figure out how to ship a Mac Pro while retaining "ecosystem" level control over academic and prosumer customers. Professionals and researchers had a stack they wanted to use, and Apple didn't support it.

Ternus will probably try to pivot Apple Silicon towards professionals, but he'll need to make software concessions to enter the true ARM HPC market. Ironically, that may entail Apple's rapprochement with Khronos to get the industry onboard with a CUDA stack alternative. Even a basic "inference hardware" GPGPU standard would put Apple Silicon back on the map for professional applications it has otherwise sat-out.

> Ternus will probably try to pivot Apple Silicon towards professionals

The Mac Studio is on par with the best gear out there for similar pricing. What kind of professional are we talking about here?

Professionals that see "rackmount" and don't stop at a one-unit rack. Industry-scale customers, not prosumer.

I don't think he intends to make a DGX Pod out of Macs, but the Studio is barely scalable. If we still had Mac Pro PCIe, then at least you could use that for interconnect. Thunderbolt RDMA is such a low pittance that Apple is basically only competing against novelty hardware like the DGX Spark.

The professionals who use multiple gpus or outboard gear etc. Professionals used to love filling up the old Apple towers. Im guessing a MacOS workstation with several PCIE SSD cards and several GPU cards would be a welcome system for say somebody working on VFX on Marvel movie, and need to keep rendering things in the background without slowing down their workflow.

Folks that use workstations, with multiple slots for whatever purposes, and now have to chose between migrating to desktop towers with Windows/Enterprise Linux configurations, or have a pile of external boxes connected via thunderbolt spaghetti into Mac Studio.

As long as people keep buying them, devs have no choice but to adapt

The other mainstream platform is Windows. Apple only needs to beat Microsoft.

Unless they lower their prices, that will never happen, 17% desktop market share worldwide, with Windows around 76%.

Not everyone lives in countries where Apple prices are acceptable, even for regional developer salaries.

If you target those countries, then you need to live with Windows.

Which is most of the world, as mentioned, 76%.

Ask Valve how it is going with Linux native games, or Apple with the Game Porting Toolkit.

Apple sells hardware and skims software sales on their platform. They are not particularly interested in moving most of their sales to the software side. They are, first and foremost, a hardware company that sells mobile devices, some peripherals (such as TVs and smart speakers) and, incidentally, computers (which are pretty much the best anyone can buy these days).

Pity that software is not up to the premium prices of said hardware.

Also that how Apple fans are so quick to forgive shanky keyboard and swelling battery experiences at premium prices.

Yes they are primarily iDevices company nowadays, which yet again isn't that big when looking into worldwide market share.

I have been using corporate issue Macs for more than a decade now and, while the software isn’t perfect, it’s a pretty good Unix that leaves nothing to be desired as a workstation OS. It’s a bit rough around the edges, with some apps getting closer in feature set to their mobile counterparts (and thus less flexible), but they are still good compared to their Windows and Unix competitors. Apple Music is still a decent media player, and TV is decent for video.

And their terminal is one of the very few that respect double-wide and double-height DEC modes, which work great for scripts.

Of course, it is a UNIX.

Not everyone across the globe has the privilege of having corporate issued Macs, hence Windows rules the desktop, when their own wallets are asked upon.

In fact, many companies have laptops pools for macOS devices, mostly used during iDevices projects, only assigned to teams members if they are on such a project.

Or even the workflow of using cross platform frameworks like Flutter, MAUI, React Native and co, with a shared Mac mini for iDevice builds.

Those rough around the edges are unacceptable for a device that costs several month salaries above the competition.

And many do abandon Apple.

How to do that exactly ?