<story><title>Apple Now Selling More M1 Macs Than Intel-Based Models, Says Tim Cook</title><url>https://www.macrumors.com/2021/04/21/apple-silicon-mac-sales-intel/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>yardie</author><text>6502 -&amp;gt; 680x0 -&amp;gt; PPC601 -&amp;gt; x86_64 -&amp;gt; ARMv8.5 (Apple M1)&lt;p&gt;Apple has a long, long history of pulling off well executed architecture changes. If you are a Apple computer shopper then you would know by now that by the time they release a new architecture, internally, that platform has long been retired for their internal users.&lt;p&gt;It would have been an even bigger headline if Apple released the M1 and it didn&amp;#x27;t live up to expectations.&lt;p&gt;I&amp;#x27;m actually more surprised about the iPad Pro going from the A-series to the M-series. And now, the new iMac looks very iPad-like.</text></item><item><author>haswell</author><text>I see a myriad of comments that boil down to “duh”, but I think these comments are missing the point.&lt;p&gt;Consider an alternate possibility: “sales of Apple’s new ARM macs outpaced by older models”.&lt;p&gt;Had Apple not knocked M1 out of the park, this was a real possibility. Is it surprising that a well executed architecture change is now selling well? Not really.&lt;p&gt;But the more interesting point is that the rest of the market agrees with us early adopters and tech nerds.&lt;p&gt;This would be a very different headline if devs were struggling to port their software, or if Rosetta 2 didn’t live up to its promise.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>addaon</author><text>6502 -&amp;gt; 680x0 -&amp;gt; PPC601 -&amp;gt; &lt;i&gt;x86&lt;/i&gt; -&amp;gt; x86_64 -&amp;gt; ARMv8.5 (Apple M1)&lt;p&gt;The original Intel Mac&amp;#x27;s ran the 32-bit Core Duo, although a mid-season refresh took them to the (64-bit) Core 2 Duo. That generation of purely-32-bit hardware being out in the wild had some real impact on moving the OS forward, later down the road.</text></comment>
<story><title>Apple Now Selling More M1 Macs Than Intel-Based Models, Says Tim Cook</title><url>https://www.macrumors.com/2021/04/21/apple-silicon-mac-sales-intel/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>yardie</author><text>6502 -&amp;gt; 680x0 -&amp;gt; PPC601 -&amp;gt; x86_64 -&amp;gt; ARMv8.5 (Apple M1)&lt;p&gt;Apple has a long, long history of pulling off well executed architecture changes. If you are a Apple computer shopper then you would know by now that by the time they release a new architecture, internally, that platform has long been retired for their internal users.&lt;p&gt;It would have been an even bigger headline if Apple released the M1 and it didn&amp;#x27;t live up to expectations.&lt;p&gt;I&amp;#x27;m actually more surprised about the iPad Pro going from the A-series to the M-series. And now, the new iMac looks very iPad-like.</text></item><item><author>haswell</author><text>I see a myriad of comments that boil down to “duh”, but I think these comments are missing the point.&lt;p&gt;Consider an alternate possibility: “sales of Apple’s new ARM macs outpaced by older models”.&lt;p&gt;Had Apple not knocked M1 out of the park, this was a real possibility. Is it surprising that a well executed architecture change is now selling well? Not really.&lt;p&gt;But the more interesting point is that the rest of the market agrees with us early adopters and tech nerds.&lt;p&gt;This would be a very different headline if devs were struggling to port their software, or if Rosetta 2 didn’t live up to its promise.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>js2</author><text>6502 was only used in the Apple II and MacOS never ran Apple II software on its 68k processor, so it doesn&amp;#x27;t really belong in that list.</text></comment>