苹果M1支点：迈向真实的扭曲领域

上周，苹果宣布将从x86部分转移到ARM上，因为其中一项声明太离谱了，它可能只来自苹果。

该公司声称其新的基于ARM的个人电脑的性能将超过市场上已有的98%。没有证据，没有实质性的例子，没有列出的基准。只要“相信我们”，这款为智能手机优化的处理器比设计用于运行个人电脑的处理器神奇地更好。

苹果还忽略了一些基本要素，比如应用程序支持、开发人员支持（看起来很轻松），甚至还忽略了他们将继续支持其x86产品的时间，这些产品似乎突然间就过时了。

我和其他电脑原始设备制造商谈过几次，他们默默地哀叹，他们的法律团队不会让他们提出这样的索赔，因为他们害怕虚假的广告集体诉讼。

让我们本周来谈谈这一点——我们将以迄今为止最好的苹果手表杀手：万宝龙2+联网智能手表，这是我本周的产品。

苹果的三大法则

这位经验丰富的苹果客户知道，对苹果关于新产品的说法持保留态度。如果你像我一样，在iPod发布时，它是一款改变游戏规则的革命性产品。但它花了三年时间和三个版本才成熟到大多数人都会买的地步。

有趣的是，索尼的随身听从未创造出可行的替代品。这一结果是因为索尼过于注重保护其知识产权（他们拥有的音乐作品），而对使其产品易于使用的关注不够。

iPhone第一次亮相时基本上没有功能，推出时却是一款可怕的手机。甚至不清楚应用程序将在哪里运行。不过，在第三代之后，它在销售和创新方面都领先于智能手机市场。

苹果之所以获胜，是因为那些占据市场主导地位的公司认为，智能手机只用于商务，而非个人。这种信念导致微软和Palm扼杀了iPhone之前的早期努力。然后，他们并没有捍卫他们本应深沉的信念，而是转而追逐苹果。

这个结果与上世纪80年代IBM和大型机的情况非常相似，我应该指出的是，IBM改变了主意，在大型机上进行了再投资，使其再次成为其最赚钱的硬件产品。最后一项研究表明，如果Research in Motion、Palm和微软采取行动进行辩护，他们可能仍然是大型智能手机玩家。

这里的教训是，在苹果推出第三个版本之前，基本上都要忽视苹果的新产品。所以买一些你会喜欢的东西，而不是那些对市场来说还不成熟的东西。

乔布斯vs.库克

当史蒂夫·乔布斯（stevejobs）开始转向时，他往往会戏剧性地这么做。然后他会用大量的营销手段说服一大群人和他一起搬家。在这样的努力下，工作可以是节俭的，但不便宜。他是为数不多的真正理解市场营销如何操纵市场的首席执行官之一——乔布斯年轻时研究印度宗教领袖时学到的技能。

库克似乎没有意识到营销的重要性，他以廉价而不节俭著称，他的努力似乎主要集中在通过降低成本的同时提高价格来增加利润。虽然乔布斯似乎从上世纪90年代初IBM几近崩溃中了解到了为什么封闭的生态系统是个坏主意，但库克似乎错过了那次会议，结果苹果已经被反垄断云笼罩。

与这次发布相关的是，库克已经调整了他的观点，一些产品转移到M1 ARM芯片上，还有一些产品保留在x86上。这种分歧将产生一个营销问题，需要说服客户做出一个苹果自己不愿意做的支点。

像这样的战斗不是靠试探性的来赢得的，这确实让苹果关于M1的性能声明显得有些虚假。如果它确实比98%的同类产品好，为什么不完全转向呢？这个已经很小的市场份额的百分之二将是老鼠的坚果。将高性能产品留在x86上意味着苹果知道M1部分没有竞争力。

兼容性

我们现在看到了过去支持多个处理器的微软，在自己有限的ARM轴上挣扎。微软最初的举动是失败的。然后，它与当前ARM和调制解调器性能领导者高通公司（Qualcomm）合作，推出了一项独特的针对性产品。它被称为“永远连接的PC”，现在它的第二次迭代（微软的第三次迭代），是一个不错的产品。尽管如此，它在纯电力方面并没有超过x86，但它在电池寿命和连接性方面胜出，而ARM在这两个方面自然更优越。

同时，作为一款连接到Azure后端的联网产品（苹果缺少这一点），它利用了高通公司和微软的联合资源来创建。另一方面，苹果公司试图让高通公司停业，从而疏远了高通公司（这家公司实际上创造了iPhone最初的功能）。

现在，苹果已经与高通公司断绝了桥梁，它希望人们认为它可以超越高通公司。如果是这样的话，为什么苹果当初不这么做，而不是先消灭高通，然后再以低价出售的方式收购高通的技术？

简而言之，如果苹果在这项技术上表现得和他们所代表的一样好，那为什么还要先干掉高通呢？

结束

有句老话说“先驱者得箭，定居者得地”。这句话讲的是一个事实，即聪明的新技术购买者要等到其他人验证了新技术后再购买。

这是我的建议，但你也不想购买他们的x86产品，因为他们很可能会过早过时，因为苹果显然计划退出这个平台。如果你是苹果的买家，明智的做法是把你拥有的苹果个人电脑保留到苹果M1技术的第三个版本，以确保它是成熟的。

这一策略将有助于确保你的应用程序在新平台上正常运行，而且苹果不会因为这个新部件和它们的分块推出问题而改变主意。它仍然会非常糟糕。

一旦你意识到这一转变的驱动力不是更高的性能，而是更高的苹果利润率（除非你为苹果工作或投资于苹果，否则根本不会给你带来任何好处），你就会知道这还不符合你的最佳利益，也许这一次你应该成为一个定居者，而不是先驱。除非你喜欢捉箭。

鉴于现在是2020年，我认为我们中的任何人都不需要再冒更多的风险。

万宝龙峰会2+4G智能手表

蒂姆·库克和史蒂夫·乔布斯还有一个分歧，那就是如何将配件推向市场。iPod与苹果和Windows两款电脑协同工作，这使它获得了改变市场的成功。但苹果手表（applewatch）在一段时间内可以说是市场上最好的智能手表，但它只与iPhone配合使用，极大地限制了它的市场机会。

苹果的这种愚蠢的策略让其他智能手表供应商有时间赶上，而新的万宝龙峰会2+可能就是这么做的。在我看来，苹果手表的外观不仅比苹果手表更具吸引力，更像手表；而且其丰富的功能集似乎与之相配，这是迄今为止上市的最令人印象深刻的非苹果智能手表。

万宝龙峰会2+智能手表

这款设备的价格在1000美元左右，价格并不便宜。但我一直相信，在高价位上不妥协地创造出某种东西，总比低价折衷的产品要好——而且这只手表看起来并不妥协。

配备了压力跟踪、先进的心率算法、速度表、高度计、气压计、罗盘和基于4G连接的GPS，这是一个可穿戴的动力。IPX8防水保护和触觉，不仅可以在水中穿着，而且在水中也很有用。

这款基于高通公司先进的Wear 3100平台的手表，对于我们这些没有进入苹果生态系统的人来说，是一个新的解决方案。因为我不会碰一个10英尺高的苹果产品（我不喜欢成为任何供应商的奴隶），万宝龙峰会2+也是我本周的产品。

原文题：Apple's M1 ARM Pivot: A Step Into the Reality Distortion Field

原文：Last week Apple announced a partial pivot away from x86 to ARM with one of those claims so outrageous it could have only come from Apple.

The company claimed its new ARM-based PCs would outperform 98 percent of those already in the market. No proof points, no material examples, no listed benchmarks. Just "trust us," this processor optimized for smartphones is magically better than processors designed to run PCs.

Apple also left out essential elements like application support, developer backing (which appears light), and even how much longer they will continue to support their x86 offerings which appear to be suddenly obsolete.

I've had several conversations with other PC OEMs, and they quietly lament that their legal teams won't let them make claims like this for fear of false advertising class action lawsuits.

Let's talk about that this week -- and we'll close with what may be the best Apple Watch killer yet: the Montblanc 2+ connected smartwatch, which is my product of the week.

Apple's Rule of 3

The experienced Apple customer knows to take Apple's claims about new products with a grain of salt. The iPod was a game-changing revolutionary product if you were, as I was, at its launch. But it took three years and three versions to mature to the point where most people would buy it.

It is interesting to note that Sony, with its Walkman, never created a viable alternative. This result was because Sony was too focused on protecting its intellectual property (the music titles they owned) and not concerned enough about making its products easy to use.

The iPhone was largely non-functioning when it was first shown and a horrid phone when launched. It wasn't even clear where the applications would run. After the third version, though, it was leading the smartphone segment in both sales and innovation.

Apple won because those that dominated the market believed that smartphones were only for business, not for individuals. This belief resulted in Microsoft and Palm killing early efforts that preceded the iPhone to do the same thing. Then, instead of defending their supposedly deep beliefs, they pivoted and tried to chase Apple.

This result was much like what happened with IBM and the mainframe in the 1980s. I should point out that IBM changed its mind and reinvested in the mainframe, turning it again into its most profitable hardware offering. This last suggests that had Research in Motion, Palm, and Microsoft moved to defend, they might still be large smartphone players.

The lesson here is to pretty much disregard a new Apple offering until it is on its third version. So buy something you'll love, not something that is still too immature for the market.

Jobs vs. Cook

When Steve Jobs would pivot, he tended to do so dramatically. He'd then use an enormous amount of marketing to convince a critical mass of folks to move with him. In efforts like this, Jobs could be frugal, but not cheap. He was one of the few CEOs who truly understood how marketing could manipulate a market -- a skill Jobs picked up when he studied India's religious leaders during his youth.

Cook doesn't seem to get the importance of marketing, is known to be cheap, not frugal, and his efforts appear primarily focused on increasing margins by reducing costs while raising prices. While Jobs seemed to learn why a closed ecosystem is a bad idea from IBM's near-collapse in the early 1990s, Cook appears to have missed that meeting and, as a result, Apple is already under an antitrust cloud.

Pertinent to this launch, Cook has tempered his pivot with some products moving to the M1 ARM chip and some remaining on x86. This bifurcation will create a marketing problem that needs to convince customers to make a pivot that Apple itself isn't willing to make.

Battles like this are not won by being tentative, and it does make Apple's performance claim about the M1 seem false. If indeed it's better than 98 percent of like products, why not fully pivot? That two percent of an already small market share would be mice nuts. Leaving the higher-performing products on x86 implies Apple knows that the M1 part isn't competitive.

Compatibility

We've now seen Microsoft, which has supported multiple processors in the past, struggle with its own far more limited ARM pivot. Microsoft's initial move was a failure. Then it partnered with Qualcomm, the current ARM and modem performance leader, to create a unique targeted offering. That was called the Always Connected PC and, now on its second iteration (third for Microsoft), it is a decent offering. Still, it doesn't outperform x86 on pure power, but it wins on battery life and connectivity -- two areas where ARM is naturally superior.

Meanwhile, the Always Connected PC is best as a connected product tied to an Azure back end (something that Apple lacks) and it took the combined resources of Qualcomm and Microsoft to create. On the other hand, Apple alienated Qualcomm (the company that effectively created the initial iPhone's capability) by trying to put them out of business.

Now that Apple has burned the bridge with Qualcomm, it wants folks to think it can outperform Qualcomm. Were that the case, why didn't Apple do that initially -- rather than trying first to wipe out Qualcomm so it could buy Qualcomm's technology on a fire sale?

In short, if Apple were as good with this technology as they seem to represent, why bother killing Qualcomm first?

Wrapping Up

There is an old saying that "Pioneers get the arrows, settlers get the land." This saying talks about the fact that smart buyers of new technology wait until others validate that technology before buying it.

That is my advice here, but you also don't want to buy their x86 offerings because they are likely to become prematurely obsolete, given Apple's apparent plan to move away from that platform. If you are an Apple buyer, the smart move is to hold on to the Apple PC you have until the third version of the Apple M1 technology to make sure it is mature.

This strategy will help assure that your applications will run properly on the new platform, and that Apple doesn't change its mind because of problems with both this new part and their split roll out. It could still go very badly.

Once you realize that the driver for this pivot wasn't more performance but a higher Apple margin (which doesn't benefit you at all unless you work for, or invest in, Apple), you'll know this isn't yet in your best interest and that maybe this time you should be a settler and not a pioneer. That is unless you enjoy catching arrows.

Given this is 2020, I don't think any of us need any more risks in our lives.

Montblanc Summit 2+ 4G Smartwatch

One other thing that Tim Cook and Steve Jobs disagreed about is how to bring an accessory to market. The iPod worked with both Apple and Windows PCs, which made it into the market changing success it became. But the Apple Watch, which for some time arguably has been the best smartwatch in the market, only works with the iPhone, dramatically limiting its market opportunity.

This foolish Apple strategy has given other providers of smartwatches time to catch up, and the new Montblanc Summit 2+ may have just done that. With an appearance that is, to my eye, both more attractive and more watch-like than the Apple Watch; and a rich feature set that appears to match it, this is the most impressive non-Apple smartwatch yet to hit the market.

Montblanc Summit 2+ Smartwatch

This device isn't a cheap date, with a price of around $1,000. But I've always believed it is better to create something without compromise at a high price than a compromised product at a low price -- and this watch doesn't appear compromised.

Outfitted with stress tracking, an advanced heart rate algorithm, speedometer, altimeter, barometer, compass, and GPS on top of 4G connectivity, this thing is a wearable powerhouse. With IPX8 water protection and haptics, not only can you wear it in the water; it is useful in the water.

Built as only Montblanc can build it; this watch based on Qualcomm's advanced Wear 3100 platform is the new solution for those of us not locked into Apple's ecosystem. Since I wouldn't touch an Apple product with a 10-foot pole (I don't like being a slave to any vendor), the Montblanc Summit 2+ is also my product of the week.

作者：Rob Enderle

原文网站：https://www.technewsworld.com/story/86919.html