This exact question was asked a year ago when the M1 was announced.
In the year since, their laptop market share increased about 2% from 14 to 16%[0].
The reasons for this are:
1. When deciding on a computer, you often have to decide based on use case, software/games used, and what operating system will work best for those use cases. For Windows users, it doesn't matter if you can get similar performance from a Macbook Pro, because you're already shopping Windows PCs.
2. Performance for most use cases has been enough for practically a decade (depending on the use case.) For some things, no amount of performance is "enough" but your workload may still be very OS-dependent. So you probably start with OS X or Windows in mind before you begin.
3. The efficiency that M1/Pro/Max are especially good at are not the only consideration for purchase decisions for hardware. And they are only available in a Macbook / Macbook Pro / Mini. If you want anything else - desktop, dedicated gaming laptop, or any other configuration that isn't covered here, you're still looking at a PC instead of a Mac. If you want to run Linux, you're probably still better off with a PC. If you want OS X, then there is only M1, and Intel/AMD are wholly irrelevant.
4. Many buyers simply do not want to be a part of Apple's closed system.
So for Intel/AMD to suddenly be "behind" still means that years will have to go by while consumers (and especially corporate buyers) shift their purchase decisions and Apple market share grows beyond the 16% they're at now. But performance is not the only thing to consider, and Intel/AMD are not sitting still either. They release improved silicon over time. If you'd asked me a year ago, I'd say "do not buy anything Intel" but their 2021 releases are perfectly fine, even if not class-leading. AMD's product line has improved drastically over the past 4 years, and are easy to recommend for many use cases. Their Zen 4 announcement may also be on the 5nm TSMC node, and could be within the ballpark of M1 Pro/Max for performance/efficiency, but available to the larger PC marketplace.
1) In the pro market (audio, video, 3d, etc) performance is very relevant.
2) Battery time is important to all types of laptop users.
3) Apple is certainly working on more desktop alternatives.
4) You don't need move all your devices into the closed ecosystem just because you use a Mac. Also, some people just don't want to use macOS on principle, but I'm guessing this is a minority.
> AMD's product line has improved drastically over the past 4 years
My desktop Windows PC has a 3700X which was very impressive at the time, but it is roughly similar in perf to the "low end" M1 aimed at casual users.
> Their Zen 4 announcement may also be on the 5nm TSMC node, and could be within the ballpark of M1 Pro/Max for performance/efficiency, but available to the larger PC marketplace.
In the pro market especially you have people who are stuck using some enterprise software that is only developed for PC like a few Autodesk programs. If you are into gaming many first party developers don't even bother making a mac port. The new call of duty and battlefield games are on every platform but switch and mac OS, and that's increasingly par for the course for this industry since mac laptops have been junk to game on for so long.
My counterpoint is that for the pro market, portability and power efficiency are not always that important. Yes, for plenty of people. But many pros are sitting at a desk all day and don’t need to move their computer around.
For these users, you’re not comparing M1 max to laptop CPUs/GPUs, but to the flagship AMD/Intel CPUs. Based on early results from the M1 max on geekbench, the 11900K and 5950X are still better. And the best GPUS for pro are absolutely still significantly more powerful than M1 Max.
This makes sense, because you have to dedicate a lot of power to desktop PCs, which you just can’t do in a laptop. But I think the pro question is still often “what gives me the most performance regardless of power usage,” and the answer is still a custom built computer with the latest high-end parts from Intel/amd/Nvidia, not apple.
Obviously Apple is basically offering the best performance hands down in a portable form factor. But Apple also isn’t releasing parts like the 3090 which draws like 400W, so it’s not yet competing for super high end performance.
Point being, I think Intel and AMD aren’t really left in the dust yet.
I think the big thing to remember is that "performance crown" at any moment in time does not have a massive instantaneous effect on the purchasing habits across the market.
I have no doubt that Apple will continue to grow their market share here. But the people that continue to buy PC will not expect ARM-based chips unless someone (whether Intel, AMD, Qualcomm or someone else) builds those chips and they are competitive with x86. And x86 chips are not suddenly "so bad" (read: obsolete) that no one will consider buying them.
> My desktop Windows PC has a 3700X which was very impressive at the time, but it is roughly similar in perf to the "low end" M1 aimed at casual users.
Still, your desktop can play AAA games at 120Hz with an appropriate GPU attached. No M1 device can do that. So once more, performance doesn't mean anything if you can't do what you want with it.
These are unit market share numbers, so will include large numbers of PCs - both consumer and corporate - at price points where Apple isn't interested in competing because the margins are probably too low.
I suspect by value their share is far higher and their % of profits is even bigger.
The strategy is very clear and it's the same as the iPhone. Dominate the high end and capture all the profits. Of course gaming is an exception to this.
The bad news for Intel is that they make their margins on high end CPUs too.
For Intel and AMD there are two different questions: will Intel fix their process technology, and will AMD get access to TSMC's leading nodes in the volumes needed to make a difference to their market share?
Laptops are only small component of biz for CPU chip manufacturers like AMD/Intel. AMD is traditionally weak in laptops and has not decent market share ever. This doesn't impact their business that much (Intel's numbers are not down that much after loosing Apple's deal after all)
AMD and especially Intel have high margin server CPU business, Apple's entire value prop is low power segment, their chips are not designed to compete in high power category and they will never sell outside their products offerings as only chips . AMD also does custom chip stuff like with PlayStation 5 etc, none of that is threatened by Apple.
Servers Chips with ECC support, enterprise features and other typically high end chips have very high profit /unit lot more than even Apple can make per chip( maybe higher % for Apple, but not absolute $ / chip). Apple is a minor player in the general CPU business.
There will be of course pressure from OEMs who stand to loose sales to Apple to step up their game, AMD/Intel are not loosing sleep over this in terms of revenue/margin yet.
Sure Intel have a server business but that’s smaller than client computing and revenues there are falling.
I don’t know what the precise % is but if Apple have 8% market share by volume their % of Intel’s client business by value is much higher. Losing a growing customer that represents that much of your business is not a trivial loss.
Of course this is all part of a bigger picture where falling behind TSMC enables a range of competitors both on servers and clients. If they don’t fix their process issues - and they may well under PG - then this will only get worse.
The Client Computing group is larger yes, however few things to keep in mind
1. they don't split revenue for Laptop market alone , So hard to say the impact of laptops (especially Apple) itself on their revenue or margins.
2. Also CCG is much slower growing than the Date Centric Group(DCG) business for Intel in the last 4-5 years as to be expected to be in the future as well.
3. The Apple deal was likely their lowest margin large deal(perhaps even loosing money ). Apple is not known for being generous to suppliers and also Intel was in not in any position of strength to ask great margins in the years leading up to Apple Silicon, the delayed processors and poor performance and threat of Apple Silicon had to have impact on pricing in the deal and therefore their margins.
Not saying that Intel don't have a lot to fix, but it also not that suddenly they are in much worse position than say last year.
Sorry, disagree on all of these points. Intel has new competition in all its highest margin businesses. It’s not going bust and may well turn things around but if you look at the PE ratio it tells you the market is pretty pessimistic vs its competitors.
I get (and respect) that you disagree with my argument. However only point 3 is inference/opinion that we can argue on,
1. and 2. are just facts from their annual report, maybe there is scope to argue that they are not relevant here or doesn't show the full picture etc, or are you are saying the facts are wrong ?
On 1. and 2. I’m (hopefully respectfully too) disagreeing with the thrust of the point.
1. We don’t know the precise split but we do know laptops are a very major part of their CCG business (based on laptops having majority of PC market share).
2. DCG revenue was down last quarter and the business is facing major competition from both AMD and Arm so I don’t think we can base expectations on performance over the last five years.
>Anyone can comment on what Intel and AMD are going to do now?
In the short term, nothing. But it isn't like Apple will magically make all PC user switch to Mac.
Right now Intel will need to catch up with Foundry first. AMD needs to work their way into partnering with many people with GPU IP which is their unique advantage. Both are currently well under way and are sensible path forward. Both CEOs knows what they are doing. I rarely praise any CEOs, but Pat and Dr Lisa are good.
Intel is releasing heterogeneous chips in less than a month. Both Intel and AMD bet heavily on 3d stacking and it should hold Apple off desktop. A lot of Apple advantage is due to node advantage and I expect that AMD will start getting latest nodes much sooner than now, 5nm ryzen should be able to compete with m2, Intel's own nodes should get better in few years relatively to latest TSMC nodes(they are not that much behind). But x86 will surely loose market share in the coming decade.
Will they be able to catch up or will Qualcomm become the alternative for ARM laptop chips? (and maybe desktop chips too)