The shift to Intel was a move of necessity, a huge risk, and ultimately a major pain for Apple's customers not talk about third party developers. Apple took a huge hit to their goodwill. That was predictable, but they went ahead and did it anyway. Why? Because they had to. PowerPC was falling further and further behind. It was alright for Macs to be more expensive than PCs, but more expensive and slower? Furthermore, PowerPC was holding Apple back from taking the Mac where they wanted it to go (ultralight laptops).
None of the issues that caused the Intel transition apply to Apple now. Intel is not holding Apple back, because Apple already uses its own chips in what it considers the future of computing: iOS devices. At the same time Macs use exactly the same chips as PCs, which means there is no risk that PCs will suddenly leapfrog the Macs. There is in other word no major need to make a shift. But the risks in doing so would be the same. Apple would once again be pissing of its customers and 3rd party developers. And for what? A marginal improvement in battery life? To save a fragment on bill of materials on a product line which already enjoys healthy margins, but which also is a tiny fragment of their overall business?
Considering how light and fast the 9.7" and 12.7 iPad Pro is having a 2lb 13" Air with similar speeds becomes fairly distinctive. It further separates the Air vs Pro lines and could have ~18 hours of battery life.
Right now the basic MacBook is 1200$ has a larger screen and lower weight than the smallest Air. The 11" Air on the other hand is much cheaper.
> It was alright for Macs to be more expensive than PCs, but more expensive and slower?
Isn't that becoming the case with iPads and (low end)Macbooks? If the rumored performance of new A10X chip is any indication, that is the direction we are going.
The PPC era did not just end with "more expensive and slower", it ended with "more expensive and slower than the competition". If buyers refuse the Macbook in favor of an iPad, Apple won't shed much of a tear.
Last time I checked, PC desktop were dominated by Windows by about 90% market share and that market, while shifting to mobile, isn't tiny either.
If they could come up with a desktop that is as small as Apple TV while providing enough performance of a large box desktop or shaves off 300g off of laptop without compromise or doubles battery power, that would be shocking even to average consumers.
As I have been losing interest on Apple products for the past 5 years not seeing much of innovations, I think it's time they take the risk while they can.
It's a shocking news if x86 drags Intel (and to some extent Windows) to secondary position, if Apple does it right.
I think you vastly overestimate how much average consumers and businesses know or care about any of those issues. Apple could release a chip that was 500% faster than the equivalent Intel chip while only consuming 75% of the power and it wouldn't move the needle on the distribution of Mac vs. Windows purchases. The vast majority of people and businesses who buy Windows buy in for the ecosystem and nothing else.
None of the issues that caused the Intel transition apply to Apple now. Intel is not holding Apple back, because Apple already uses its own chips in what it considers the future of computing: iOS devices. At the same time Macs use exactly the same chips as PCs, which means there is no risk that PCs will suddenly leapfrog the Macs. There is in other word no major need to make a shift. But the risks in doing so would be the same. Apple would once again be pissing of its customers and 3rd party developers. And for what? A marginal improvement in battery life? To save a fragment on bill of materials on a product line which already enjoys healthy margins, but which also is a tiny fragment of their overall business?