[ikk157]

Thing is I actually proved it for myself.  I purchased two Apple iphone 6's in 2017 when I wanted to make a decision about whether to go for Apple iphone or Android phone.  I also purchased a Samsung Galaxy s7 which I thought was a comparable model.  At that time Apple iPhone 8 had just been released.  The charging of batteries and also the duration of how long they lasted was won hands down by Galaxy S7.  I then discovered during the year of that test - that there was a special Apple battery recovery project to compensate for batteries not working properly.  If tested to be necessary, Apple would replace the battery.  So obviously Apple acknowledged there was a problem.  So I took both iphones to a battery facility in Dubai - certified to fix Apple batteries.  The batteries were tested according to Apple test, and found to be in good condition for Apple.  Whether it was the battery's fault or not, what stuck out a mile for me was Apple has an unethical way of forcing users to upgrade to the newest and most up to date Apple models.  The battery replacement project was just a pacifier of sorts to lull customers in thinking Apple is a great company - a marketing ploy.  I then chose Android, as although I do think Apple iphone is a superior phone, it's only for the rich and if you can afford the latest models.  

So for me Apple is a good phone for professionals or people with a lot of money, so they can upgrade every time when there's a new phone or at least within a model from the latest phone so the latest OS won't cause a drag and overuse of battery on the older models.  I'm almost dead certain with the last change in component manufacture moving from Intel to Apple, that is going to have a great effect on future models, and new OS not being as compatible with older phones, and causing them to drag.  Again FORCING Apple users to upgrade to the new models so the OS will work fast as it should.

With Android it's a one size fits all OS, so the developers of Android have to always keep in mind of that.  But with Apple, they can do as they like.  Including lying to its users.  As of course it has a huge market, and by getting its wealthy customers to update to the newest phones, it can maintain its huge market share.

If you look up the battery capacity of both the iPhone 6 and galaxy S7, you’ll instantly come to the realization that the S7 had almost double the battery capacity compared to the iPhone 6... so it’s no wonder it lasted the longest in your test. And honestly taking the iPhone 6 to get its battery tested was very unnecessary... even though it wasn’t the latest phone, you bought a new one... so a new battery never before used, hence minimal charging cycles = no wear. The issue is with phones that has been used for quite some time... not ones that aren’t the latest.

And I completely disagree with your point of Apple lying to their customers. And so do I disagree with your point of them forcing users to upgrade.

Apple supports their phones for years... my iPhone 6s was released on 2015 (5 years ago!!!), and its still getting support to the upcoming iOS 14!!! Get me an android device from 5 years ago that’s going to get the upcoming version of android! Not to mention that apple rolls out updates to all supported devices at once, unlike android where it takes forever for previous generation devices to get the update (if at all). 

If apple really wanted to force users to upgrade, they wouldn’t have supported their older devices with new versions of iOS for as long as the device’s specs can handle it.

And no, battery wear is not apple’s method of forcing users to upgrade. Battery wear is an actual thing... and android can’t magically fix it. It’s just that apple actually cares about this and minimizing its impact on users, versus android manufacturers who simply aren’t even bothered.

---

By definition every EMULATION is slower than native runtime. This is just a rule that cannot be fouled.
You can't install Windows on ARM via BootCamp because Windows doesn't sell any license for Windows on ARM, only OEMs can get them.

First of all, I said “MINIMAL” impact on performance... I never said it’ll run as good as running it natively.

As for bootcamp: again, it’s still too early to tell. Apple literally announced the switch to apple silicone a mere 3 days ago... and it’s not going to be available for consumer use anytime soon... we don’t have enough information as of now to jump into any conclusions regarding the fate of running windows on ARM macs natively. 

And bare in mind this is apple, which is a BIG company. They can easily get microsoft to license Windows on ARM if they wanted to. For a matter of fact, microsoft themselves will probably do that anyway considering that it’s a great sales opportunity for them... and the fact that windows on ARM already exists, so all they need to do is sell a license for the mac.

But to emphasize: it’s too early!!!

[noahthewindowsguy]

Well that does kill the possibility to run BootCamp or Linux even. Preview Mac had the iPad Pro CPU so i guess i could run OS XI Big Sur with UTM emulator. I hope this new change does not break compatibility for past X86 software.

[humanpuff69]

Well that does kill the possibility to run BootCamp or Linux even. Preview Mac had the iPad Pro CPU so i guess i could run OS XI Big Sur with UTM emulator. I hope this new change does not break compatibility for past X86 software.

for emulation they demo virtualizaiton on stage . the solution is virutalization not bootcamp and bootcamp is removed so there is no more ability to run windows on mac based arm . windows on arm is kinda weird it only run on specific hardware that microsoft want or if the device is extremely open source like raspberry pi . in the stage they run debian 10 in virtualization . it is the same as microsoft WSL

[ikk157]

for emulation they demo virtualizaiton on stage . the solution is virutalization not bootcamp and bootcamp is removed so there is no more ability to run windows on mac based arm . windows on arm is kinda weird it only run on specific hardware that microsoft want or if the device is extremely open source like raspberry pi . in the stage they run debian 10 in virtualization . it is the same as microsoft WSL

What’s up with all the assumptions... how’d you jump into the conclusion that bootcamp was removed? Apple didn’t say a word about removing bootcamp. Not to mention that bootcamp wasn’t built for x86-64 OSs specifically, but rather dual booting any compatible OS... so them removing it is not even a reasonable assumption.

Also, Windows on ARM doesn’t officially support the raspberry pi. There have been people who are heavily modifying it to make it work on the raspberry pi, but I’m yet to see any fully functional version. Not to mention that there’s no way you could buy a license for the raspberry pi, so these modified copies are illegal to use anyway.

[rudra]

i really hoped they will give AMD their fair share of business and money after what they gave intel for so long. this is a somewhat sad news. though i think they will keep x86-64 platforms alongside too.
ARM according to many is powerful enough to be our day-to-day use computing platform with the added bonus of being very power efficient. but i think AMD power efficient low energy consumption platforms are not that far behind either. especially when you look at the power of those inbuilt gpu cores. i hope they bring earth shattering good news with their next line up.

[tbelldesignco]

I am honestly excited for the migration and I have one of the Development Units set up at work. For developers, app development is going to be made easier in the long run, being able to make apps that are compatible one the entire ecosystem with more integration platform wide. I am currently developing an ergonomic health app, so having the ability to integrate the app into macOS 11 and then use peripherals like the AppleWatch and iPhone alongside the app for desktop and potentially an AppleTV service is a game changer! I also am excited for Apple Silicon's power management and being able to go the distance with future MacBook Pros.

[Arkiven4]

there are a lot of reason why apple switch from intel to their custom arm chip

-cost
making a chip yourself is cheaper than using other people chipset espescially if the chipset that you create is better , more fficient and didnt stuck on 14nm like intel does .

-control and optimization
because apple create the chip itself they know more about the silicon so they can optimize it greatly . it is already done on ios with idevices like iphone and ipad . so im not surprized if apple arm can beat intel offering . it is just a fact that intel mostly doesnt do sh*t and just rebranding older processor and adding some core

-hackintosh
with apple using arm on their mac it is basically eliminating hackintosh entirely . hakintosh only exist when they switch to intel because it is the architecture of what most pc using . by switching arm it is near impossible to run macos on non apple hardware . at this time there is no ios running on any non apple device . why not for mac?

I agree , plus about Security : In 2018 , A bug was found in Intel Processor , where the kind of Meltdown and Spectre can exploit Intel Processor, and in 2019 , another bug was founded,  named "ZombieLoad" CMIIW.

And About Apple change their processor to ARM, i think other company must follow to adaptation with apple , look like apple want their device is "Exclusive" , so other company must follow them , not vice versa ..

And I heard News NVdia buy ARM , and Whats is mean for Apple?

[tbelldesignco]

I agree , plus about Security : In 2018 , A bug was found in Intel Processor , where the kind of Meltdown and Spectre can exploit Intel Processor, and in 2019 , another bug was founded,  named "ZombieLoad" CMIIW.

And About Apple change their processor to ARM, i think other company must follow to adaptation with apple , look like apple want their device is "Exclusive" , so other company must follow them , not vice versa ..

And I heard News NVdia buy ARM , and Whats is mean for Apple?

Well Apple is designing their own Silicon for their new chips, like they have with the iPhone, iPad and WatchOS line and Foxconn has traditionally been the ones who manufacture the chips, so I don't think that will be much of an issue. Apple has already stated that they will be supporting intel Macs for at least the next decade, and with each following version it will contain the ktexts and files needed to port future versions to have Intel Chipset capabilities. We look at the Unsupported Mac project, where Core2Duo and Pentenium Intel Macs are being hobbled along with mild changes to the system and there are even some builds of Hackintosh Macs running AMD chipsets and boards.

[OldMeister]

i have not read about that mate. but i think it will be great! if the companies will update to support the new chips like microsoft and adobe then it wont be a problem! which amd processor they will be using? and it will make the apple macbook price to go even higher no?