Originally Posted by AppleInsider
According to one of the sources, the recently-returned Bob Mansfield has long been interested in making a more consistent experience across iOS and OS X, a goal that could take shape as former mobile software chief Scott Forstall was recently ousted.
Is Forstall going to get blamed for everything from now on? Maybe Apple will build a car and a TV now that Forstall isn't holding them all back.
When it comes to ARM, I don't see why every big company wouldn't move to it. As soon as you buy chips from a 3rd party, you are putting yields, price, performance and features of the core part of your product under someone else's control.
Apple can't force Intel to make their IGP decent - that's why they have had to keep shifting back and forth between Intel's junk and GPUs from AMD/NVidia.
When Apple bought up the chip design firm and started doing this themselves, it was a clear sign they are tired of having other companies dictate the standard of their core components. This 'Swift' architecture is early days but a pretty good effort:
Of course you can't take the chip from an iPhone, put it in an iMac and call it a day but consider performance per watt. What dual-core 1.3GHz x86 chip runs in a TDP of 2-5W? The iMac CPU has up to a 95W TDP.
Now consider Moore's Law. Right now we look at what we need now and we could not run productive apps comfortably on a phone. But, even if processing power doubles every 2 years, the processors we have will be 30x faster in 10 years. Apple is at 32nm with the A6 and Intel is at 22nm - it shrinks 70% each time so next up are 15nm, 10nm, 7nm, 5nm:
Further might be possible:
But just assume 30x for the CPU alone. Now assume that we have fully heterogenous computing where code runs on the GPU just as it does on the CPU but faster so now you are at least double again to 60x.
Even if you take a 50% hit on emulation speed, there is little reason to complain about x86 performance. Apple is not going to be alone in this. Just look at the population growth. Can a single company (Intel) delivery the kind of yields to satisfy shipments in the billions? What if they are late, should the world's computer technology sector just wait? That's what we have to do now because nobody can fairly compete with Intel.
More and more companies are clearly becoming frustrated by Intel. Modern games consoles don't use Intel and they are fairly powerful machines. The Wii-U uses an ARM CPU to run the OS and they all use IBM PPC CPUs.
If Intel has a roadmap to 60x then there might be no reason to switch but if Apple has a faster roadmap, there is because Apple could make an ARM chip 2^5 (32x) faster in the time Intel makes an x86 chip 2^3 (8x) faster. Even with a 50% hit with emulation, Apple would still be faster than Intel native. There are undeniable downsides but it's all just legacy. Companies will have to change their software to accommodate new input methods and operating systems in due time anyway.