John Siracusa

There's plenty.

But I mean, and Apple knows this.

I bet Apple looks at like workloads of like, what do people actually do with Macs?

And how can we make that more efficient?

And so we'll see, like, especially we'll see with like the performance, the power numbers, the battery usage and stuff.

If they were able to flip this arrangement going from twice as many big to little to twice as many little to big and still get a performance increase, that I think says to me that they have made the correct trade-off because they are presumably using less space.

They're getting more cores.

Like, so, you know, 15 is more than 12, right?

So they got three extra cores, right?

similar power envelope, I would hope, and better performance.

So I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt now and say this total inversion of big to little was a smart move and it is suitable.

It fits what people do with Macs because that's the whole thing.

They have the app store.

They know how people use.

They have the OS.

They make the hardware.

They make the silicon.

Like their whole deal is we can figure out how best to serve the workloads that people actually use our Macs for and then make a chip that does that better than the previous one.

I mean, I think they've gotten bigger maybe in terms of transistor count, but remember this is a shrink as well, so they might not have gotten physically bigger.

This is not a shrink.