Can't respond to you all, so I guess I should say I'm sure Apple isn't out to commit business suicide by locking down it's computers.
A lot of the reasons to create the iPad is for media consumption, which the content providers do like a certain level of control over, thus the mention of processor based DRM schemes in the A4 used in the iPad.
This way one can have the best of both, a open computer with a lot of control and a closed device that can play a lot of content.
That's likely the plan, I'm just not up for a lot of change anymore, retired baby boomer and all.
I wonder if the ARM architecture is capable of running a full OS like Windows or OS X.
Linux runs very nicely on ARM.
When Acorn Computers designed the original ARM processors (ARM originally stood for Acorn RISC Machines) back in the late 80s and early 90s they were for their own line of desktop computers (running their own custom OS - RISC OS). Things have moved on since then, but it has heritage. Only when ARM was spun out of Acorn as a separate company (with Acorn, Apple and VLSI as shareholders) did it go down the amazingly successful path of developing the architecture for the embedded appliance market - initially for Apple's Newton, which used the ARM610. The same processor was also in Acorn's Desktop RiscPC 600.
This is a point that I think most tech-heads just do not seem to get. The iPad (just like the iPhone) is not a "computer" in the literal sense.
sfocal - I do get the point you are trying to make, but your choice of wording is a bit misleading.
The iPad IS a computer - in the literal sense: Given the right program, like any computer, it is capable of computing anything that is theoretically computable (given also sufficient time and storage space). At its heart is the A4 which logically is no different from a high-end Intel processor. (Yes, I know that the instructions set is different, that is not the usage of logically intended here.)
I believe your point, with which I agree completely, is that it is not designed to be equivalent to a desktop/laptop computer. It is designed to be exactly what it is - the iPad - a very portable relatively low-powered (compared to say an MBP) device for doing well all the things that it does do well, but leaving the "heavy lifting" of content creation and other compute intensive tasks to its stronger, more appropriate brethren.
Much of that will depend on what yields they actually get at 1GHz and that will be a function of what feature size the device is designed for. There is a trade-off whereby smaller feature size will mean more devices per wafer and hence lower cost, but it will also mean more devices fail to meet the 1GHz target.
If Apple have plans to use a slower version of the A4 elsewhere, they will have gone for smaller geometries, but if not, they will have gone for larger to get as many 1GHz devices out of a wafer that they can.
After spending 20 yrs in the Semi Industry it's not about Speed or Size but power drain. Just like the PC world over-clocks their PC's to get more speed but at the cost of excessive power drain and huge heat load. Apple could have designed those A4 chips for say 1.2Ghz and 3.5mW power drain where the power drain was the goal. So in wafer test all chips meeting the 3.5mW spec and at least 1Ghz are accepted for packaging (at this time) the balance could be graded to a lower operating speed and set aside for later use in say an iPhone, Apple TV. or Airport Express.
It took us close to 3 years to get 80% yields on multifunction watch chips back in the early 80's. Hopefully technology has advanced sufficiently in the past 15 years that the time from first working silicon to 75-80% yields has gone from years to months. Oh yes, size does matter in the long run, by reducing geometries power consumption decreases and speed increases. So once you get your design bugs resolved you can then move to doing a die shrink. This can be observed with generations of Intel processors each generation typically using smaller geometries.
This is a point that I think most tech-heads just do not seem to get. The iPad (just like the iPhone) is not a "computer" in the literal sense. It's a toaster. It is not meant to be anything related to the PC paradigm of loading whatever you want, how you want.
But they will never admit it. The iPad is an appliance. Like a toaster. Or a waffle iron. Maybe a curling iron?
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal
The majority of iPad consumers will not give a rat's a** about this issue. It's transparent to them and rightfully should be.
Nobody ever worries about how the guts of their electric blender works. It is just magic.
After spending 20 yrs in the Semi Industry it's not about Speed or Size but power drain. Just like the PC world over-clocks their PC's to get more speed but at the cost of excessive power drain and huge heat load. Apple could have designed those A4 chips for say 1.2Ghz and 3.5mW power drain where the power drain was the goal. So in wafer test all chips meeting the 3.5mW spec and at least 1Ghz are accepted for packaging (at this time) the balance could be graded to a lower operating speed and set aside for later use in say an iPhone, Apple TV. or Airport Express.
It took us close to 3 years to get 80% yields on multifunction watch chips back in the early 80's. Hopefully technology has advanced sufficiently in the past 15 years that the time from first working silicon to 75-80% yields has gone from years to months. Oh yes, size does matter in the long run, by reducing geometries power consumption decreases and speed increases. So once you get your design bugs resolved you can then move to doing a die shrink. This can be observed with generations of Intel processors each generation typically using smaller geometries.
I'm still in the industry! You'd be stunned how quickly they get to >80% yields these days. Back when I started 15 years ago it was as you said, 3 years + to get there, now it's under six months.
Um, yeah. The only time Steve doesn't do pure evil is if some set of circumstances "has him by the balls." Because of the evilness.
Pure evil? Maybe not pure. I mean wanting to control every aspect of everything you can get your hands on so as to increase your own wealth stems from greed, which is an evil characteristic, but does it make someone pure evil?
I agree that all the hubbub about Apple abandoning the Mac for the new touch devices is a little silly, but amazingly, I've heard this fear from credible pundits like Leo Laporte. The problem with that argument can be summarized bu the following:
Criticism: The Macbooks are late because Apple doesn't care about them anymore.
Answer: The Macbooks are late because something held up the production. And it could be anything frankly. Lastly, the machine could be ready now but Apple didn't want to step on their own story with the iPad launch tomorrow. Once the date pushed out toward iPad launch time, any new anything from Apple was going to have to wait.
Criticism: The A4 will replace Intel.
Answer: Now this is laughable. The Intel product suite does what it does VERY WELL. The ARM product suite does what it does VERY WELL. They don't really play in each other's sandboxes. Intel is trying to get more Atom traction but the main market for that is netbooks since they want to run Windows. Anything in the smartphone or slate market is pretty much ARM right now. After this weekend, Apple will have sold more slates than anyone else several times over. And Macbooks will still fly out the door running Mac software as always. Relax.
Criticism: Half of Apple's revenue comes from iPhone/iPod Touch right now so they will want to concentrate there and not the Mac.
Answer: The Mac products, especially the laptops are a growing business and not by small numbers. The year-over-year growth percentage remains in the double-digits. OS X continues to be the common denominator with most of Apple's products which allows increased revenues due to product commonality. Also, many of the advances in Apple design are still happening first on the Mac. That Unibody Macbook Pro case is the father of the iPad case (the Macbook Air is the grandfather).
With nothing of substance to report about the new chip, a variety of sources apparently began making things up based on supposition. The blog "Bright Side of News" published a report in late January that said the A4 includes the Cortex-A9 MPCore (identical to the processor in the nVidia Tegra and Qualcomm Snapdragon) and an ARM-designed Mali 50-series GPU core.
Huh? Qualcomm's Snapdragon process is Cortex-A8 based and nVidia's Tegra chip is based on an even older ARM11 core. Tegra 2 will be based on an A9 core but it hasn't appeared in any devices yet. There's currently no production chips based on the new A9 design yet, though engineering samples are available.
Even you're going to write a long piece on embedded chips, at least get the basic facts right.
What's got me horrified and a lot of other people too, is that Apple is going to drop Intel processors for these A4's and we will no longer have the ability to use other operating systems and the like with our Mac's.
Worst off if they decide to lock their machines down to the App Store, restrict our freedom with our machines and force us use the iPad UI instead of windows UI.
Apple hasn't released the MacBook Pro updates in quite some time, which leads me to believe they intend to create pent up demand in that market and force people to switch to something very radical.
Guess I didn't realize that the Tea Party movement had turned its attention to the Mac.
Criticism: Half of Apple's revenue comes from iPhone/iPod Touch right now so they will want to concentrate there and not the Mac.
Answer: The Mac products, especially the laptops are a growing business and not by small numbers. The year-over-year growth percentage remains in the double-digits. OS X continues to be the common denominator with most of Apple's products which allows increased revenues due to product commonality. Also, many of the advances in Apple design are still happening first on the Mac. That Unibody Macbook Pro case is the father of the iPad case (the Macbook Air is the grandfather).
Agreed. Expanding on your third topic, if anything with the iPod it has expanded the Macs market share. More people were exposed to the Macs when the iPod sales skyrocketed. Revenues from the iPod and iPhone have allowed Apple to work more on their iMacs, MBP and MacPros and need I say the iPad.
Seriously; when has Apple EVER saud they where dropping X86 hardware on the Mac? Posting such crap doesn't paint a pretty picture of your self.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpotOn
What's got me horrified and a lot of other people too, is that Apple is going to drop Intel processors for these A4's and we will no longer have the ability to use other operating systems and the like with our Mac's.
As fast as A4 is rumored to be, it still isn't a competitive desktop or laptop processor.
Quote:
Worst off if they decide to lock their machines down to the App Store, restrict our freedom with our machines and force us use the iPad UI instead of windows UI.
Apple hasn't released the MacBook Pro updates in quite some time, which leads me to believe they intend to create pent up demand in that market and force people to switch to something very radical.
the new MBPs may be radical but it won't be because of an ARM chip. Well at least an ARM chip as the main processor. There are more important things for you to worry about.
Answer: Now this is laughable. The Intel product suite does what it does VERY WELL. The ARM product suite does what it does VERY WELL. They don't really play in each other's sandboxes. Intel is trying to get more Atom traction but the main market for that is netbooks since they want to run Windows. Anything in the smartphone or slate market is pretty much ARM right now. After this weekend, Apple will have sold more slates than anyone else several times over. And Macbooks will still fly out the door running Mac software as always. Relax.
That is a great point. When Apple ditched PowerPC to goto Intel it was entirely down to them picking the best processor for the job. A4 seems to be exactly the same case for iPad - let's face it, almost everyone uses ARM devices for mobile devices and had Apple not designed this themselves but had instead bought an ARM based device designed by, I don't know, Samsung, nobody would be batting an eyelid.
Intel remain king of the desktop and laptop - it's hard to see why Apple would want to move away from that.
If you think change is coming in the future your right.
Is the App Store model more secure? Is the App Store model simpler to install Apps? Does the App Store model force competition among developers? Does it bring quality apps to the top? Does is have a freeware section?
The answer to all these questions is yes.
So for better or for worse, and I'd say for better - we'll be seeing the Mac App Store in 2011.
"Normal people don't like today's computers. Most loathe them because they can't fully understand their absurd complexity and arcane conventions," Jesus Diaz writes for Gizmodo. "That's why the iPad will kill today's computers, just like the latter killed computers running with punchcards and command lines."
"Of course, the iPad?the actual product that millions will buy in the coming months?won't replace all computers. The entire world is not going to run just on tablets, just like the world doesn't run only on smartphones and personal computers now," Diaz writes. "But Steve Jobs' Next Big Thing is the first computer that requires no training whatsoever, one that is truly accessible and useful for everyone. Just like the iPhone changed the idea of what a phone should be without anyone truly realizing it, Apple's new computer will completely and permanently change our idea of what a computer is and how it should behave."
Diaz writes, "The perception change will be so deep that it will kill Mac OS X, Windows and Linux as we know them today. At one point during this decade, you will no longer have a billion folders and file icons floating in a virtual desktop. There will be no more baffling setup screens. No more shortcuts to work around limitations and old conventions. These frustrating barriers?built during decades of evolution?are what make normal people hate computers. These barriers have now been obliterated, first by the iPhone and now by the iPad. Everyone will be using computers similar to the iPad. Not in terms of hardware, form factor, and specs. But on its philosophy."
Regarding the article...Yes and No- The digital world has become to graduated for anything so utopian, but on the whole...I think most computer users agree it would be nice if things were less complicated. Apple does this very well.
On the flip side, there are too many users today that rely upon fairly complex computer programs and knowledge. That is never going to go away, in fact quite the opposite. There is always going to be a huge market for the power user, gamer, programmer.
What's got me horrified and a lot of other people too, is that Apple is going to drop Intel processors for these A4's and we will no longer have the ability to use other operating systems and the like with our Mac's.
Worst off if they decide to lock their machines down to the App Store, restrict our freedom with our machines and force us use the iPad UI instead of windows UI.
Apple hasn't released the MacBook Pro updates in quite some time, which leads me to believe they intend to create pent up demand in that market and force people to switch to something very radical.
??? Apple has NEVER used Intel processors in their iPhone, iPod Touch, iPod, iPad only in their desktops.
There's no way Apple would use ARMs in their desktop and laptop products because they are too under powered.
That being said there's nothing to stop Apple building their own Intel based processors and showing the computing world how it should be done. Apple would simply only need to create its own drivers for their own chipsets which is does in BootCamp anyway so backwards compatibility isn't really san issue.
Comments
Can't respond to you all, so I guess I should say I'm sure Apple isn't out to commit business suicide by locking down it's computers.
A lot of the reasons to create the iPad is for media consumption, which the content providers do like a certain level of control over, thus the mention of processor based DRM schemes in the A4 used in the iPad.
This way one can have the best of both, a open computer with a lot of control and a closed device that can play a lot of content.
That's likely the plan, I'm just not up for a lot of change anymore, retired baby boomer and all.
That's a pretty lame attempt at creating FUD! You can't come up with anything better? Seriously!
What do you mean? He got at least 10 people to bite. I'd say that it met his needs very well indeed. You new here?
I wonder if the ARM architecture is capable of running a full OS like Windows or OS X.
Linux runs very nicely on ARM.
When Acorn Computers designed the original ARM processors (ARM originally stood for Acorn RISC Machines) back in the late 80s and early 90s they were for their own line of desktop computers (running their own custom OS - RISC OS). Things have moved on since then, but it has heritage. Only when ARM was spun out of Acorn as a separate company (with Acorn, Apple and VLSI as shareholders) did it go down the amazingly successful path of developing the architecture for the embedded appliance market - initially for Apple's Newton, which used the ARM610. The same processor was also in Acorn's Desktop RiscPC 600.
This is a point that I think most tech-heads just do not seem to get. The iPad (just like the iPhone) is not a "computer" in the literal sense.
sfocal - I do get the point you are trying to make, but your choice of wording is a bit misleading.
The iPad IS a computer - in the literal sense: Given the right program, like any computer, it is capable of computing anything that is theoretically computable (given also sufficient time and storage space). At its heart is the A4 which logically is no different from a high-end Intel processor. (Yes, I know that the instructions set is different, that is not the usage of logically intended here.)
I believe your point, with which I agree completely, is that it is not designed to be equivalent to a desktop/laptop computer. It is designed to be exactly what it is - the iPad - a very portable relatively low-powered (compared to say an MBP) device for doing well all the things that it does do well, but leaving the "heavy lifting" of content creation and other compute intensive tasks to its stronger, more appropriate brethren.
Regards!
Much of that will depend on what yields they actually get at 1GHz and that will be a function of what feature size the device is designed for. There is a trade-off whereby smaller feature size will mean more devices per wafer and hence lower cost, but it will also mean more devices fail to meet the 1GHz target.
If Apple have plans to use a slower version of the A4 elsewhere, they will have gone for smaller geometries, but if not, they will have gone for larger to get as many 1GHz devices out of a wafer that they can.
After spending 20 yrs in the Semi Industry it's not about Speed or Size but power drain. Just like the PC world over-clocks their PC's to get more speed but at the cost of excessive power drain and huge heat load. Apple could have designed those A4 chips for say 1.2Ghz and 3.5mW power drain where the power drain was the goal. So in wafer test all chips meeting the 3.5mW spec and at least 1Ghz are accepted for packaging (at this time) the balance could be graded to a lower operating speed and set aside for later use in say an iPhone, Apple TV. or Airport Express.
It took us close to 3 years to get 80% yields on multifunction watch chips back in the early 80's. Hopefully technology has advanced sufficiently in the past 15 years that the time from first working silicon to 75-80% yields has gone from years to months. Oh yes, size does matter in the long run, by reducing geometries power consumption decreases and speed increases. So once you get your design bugs resolved you can then move to doing a die shrink. This can be observed with generations of Intel processors each generation typically using smaller geometries.
This is a point that I think most tech-heads just do not seem to get. The iPad (just like the iPhone) is not a "computer" in the literal sense. It's a toaster. It is not meant to be anything related to the PC paradigm of loading whatever you want, how you want.
But they will never admit it. The iPad is an appliance. Like a toaster. Or a waffle iron. Maybe a curling iron?
The majority of iPad consumers will not give a rat's a** about this issue. It's transparent to them and rightfully should be.
Nobody ever worries about how the guts of their electric blender works. It is just magic.
After spending 20 yrs in the Semi Industry it's not about Speed or Size but power drain. Just like the PC world over-clocks their PC's to get more speed but at the cost of excessive power drain and huge heat load. Apple could have designed those A4 chips for say 1.2Ghz and 3.5mW power drain where the power drain was the goal. So in wafer test all chips meeting the 3.5mW spec and at least 1Ghz are accepted for packaging (at this time) the balance could be graded to a lower operating speed and set aside for later use in say an iPhone, Apple TV. or Airport Express.
It took us close to 3 years to get 80% yields on multifunction watch chips back in the early 80's. Hopefully technology has advanced sufficiently in the past 15 years that the time from first working silicon to 75-80% yields has gone from years to months. Oh yes, size does matter in the long run, by reducing geometries power consumption decreases and speed increases. So once you get your design bugs resolved you can then move to doing a die shrink. This can be observed with generations of Intel processors each generation typically using smaller geometries.
I'm still in the industry! You'd be stunned how quickly they get to >80% yields these days. Back when I started 15 years ago it was as you said, 3 years + to get there, now it's under six months.
Um, yeah. The only time Steve doesn't do pure evil is if some set of circumstances "has him by the balls." Because of the evilness.
Pure evil? Maybe not pure. I mean wanting to control every aspect of everything you can get your hands on so as to increase your own wealth stems from greed, which is an evil characteristic, but does it make someone pure evil?
Meh
Criticism: The Macbooks are late because Apple doesn't care about them anymore.
Answer: The Macbooks are late because something held up the production. And it could be anything frankly. Lastly, the machine could be ready now but Apple didn't want to step on their own story with the iPad launch tomorrow. Once the date pushed out toward iPad launch time, any new anything from Apple was going to have to wait.
Criticism: The A4 will replace Intel.
Answer: Now this is laughable. The Intel product suite does what it does VERY WELL. The ARM product suite does what it does VERY WELL. They don't really play in each other's sandboxes. Intel is trying to get more Atom traction but the main market for that is netbooks since they want to run Windows. Anything in the smartphone or slate market is pretty much ARM right now. After this weekend, Apple will have sold more slates than anyone else several times over. And Macbooks will still fly out the door running Mac software as always. Relax.
Criticism: Half of Apple's revenue comes from iPhone/iPod Touch right now so they will want to concentrate there and not the Mac.
Answer: The Mac products, especially the laptops are a growing business and not by small numbers. The year-over-year growth percentage remains in the double-digits. OS X continues to be the common denominator with most of Apple's products which allows increased revenues due to product commonality. Also, many of the advances in Apple design are still happening first on the Mac. That Unibody Macbook Pro case is the father of the iPad case (the Macbook Air is the grandfather).
With nothing of substance to report about the new chip, a variety of sources apparently began making things up based on supposition. The blog "Bright Side of News" published a report in late January that said the A4 includes the Cortex-A9 MPCore (identical to the processor in the nVidia Tegra and Qualcomm Snapdragon) and an ARM-designed Mali 50-series GPU core.
Huh? Qualcomm's Snapdragon process is Cortex-A8 based and nVidia's Tegra chip is based on an even older ARM11 core. Tegra 2 will be based on an A9 core but it hasn't appeared in any devices yet. There's currently no production chips based on the new A9 design yet, though engineering samples are available.
Even you're going to write a long piece on embedded chips, at least get the basic facts right.
What's got me horrified and a lot of other people too, is that Apple is going to drop Intel processors for these A4's and we will no longer have the ability to use other operating systems and the like with our Mac's.
Worst off if they decide to lock their machines down to the App Store, restrict our freedom with our machines and force us use the iPad UI instead of windows UI.
Apple hasn't released the MacBook Pro updates in quite some time, which leads me to believe they intend to create pent up demand in that market and force people to switch to something very radical.
Guess I didn't realize that the Tea Party movement had turned its attention to the Mac.
Guess I didn't realize that the Tea Party movement had turned its attention to the Mac.
Tablets: Just How Nazi Germany Started.
Criticism: Half of Apple's revenue comes from iPhone/iPod Touch right now so they will want to concentrate there and not the Mac.
Answer: The Mac products, especially the laptops are a growing business and not by small numbers. The year-over-year growth percentage remains in the double-digits. OS X continues to be the common denominator with most of Apple's products which allows increased revenues due to product commonality. Also, many of the advances in Apple design are still happening first on the Mac. That Unibody Macbook Pro case is the father of the iPad case (the Macbook Air is the grandfather).
Agreed. Expanding on your third topic, if anything with the iPod it has expanded the Macs market share. More people were exposed to the Macs when the iPod sales skyrocketed. Revenues from the iPod and iPhone have allowed Apple to work more on their iMacs, MBP and MacPros and need I say the iPad.
What's got me horrified and a lot of other people too, is that Apple is going to drop Intel processors for these A4's and we will no longer have the ability to use other operating systems and the like with our Mac's.
As fast as A4 is rumored to be, it still isn't a competitive desktop or laptop processor.
Worst off if they decide to lock their machines down to the App Store, restrict our freedom with our machines and force us use the iPad UI instead of windows UI.
Apple hasn't released the MacBook Pro updates in quite some time, which leads me to believe they intend to create pent up demand in that market and force people to switch to something very radical.
the new MBPs may be radical but it won't be because of an ARM chip. Well at least an ARM chip as the main processor. There are more important things for you to worry about.
Dave
Criticism: The A4 will replace Intel.
Answer: Now this is laughable. The Intel product suite does what it does VERY WELL. The ARM product suite does what it does VERY WELL. They don't really play in each other's sandboxes. Intel is trying to get more Atom traction but the main market for that is netbooks since they want to run Windows. Anything in the smartphone or slate market is pretty much ARM right now. After this weekend, Apple will have sold more slates than anyone else several times over. And Macbooks will still fly out the door running Mac software as always. Relax.
That is a great point. When Apple ditched PowerPC to goto Intel it was entirely down to them picking the best processor for the job. A4 seems to be exactly the same case for iPad - let's face it, almost everyone uses ARM devices for mobile devices and had Apple not designed this themselves but had instead bought an ARM based device designed by, I don't know, Samsung, nobody would be batting an eyelid.
Intel remain king of the desktop and laptop - it's hard to see why Apple would want to move away from that.
If you think change is coming in the future your right.
Is the App Store model more secure? Is the App Store model simpler to install Apps? Does the App Store model force competition among developers? Does it bring quality apps to the top? Does is have a freeware section?
The answer to all these questions is yes.
So for better or for worse, and I'd say for better - we'll be seeing the Mac App Store in 2011.
- - - - -
And no, Apple aren't dropping Intel anytime soon.
Apropos . . . here's something interesting:
http://gizmodo.com/5506692/ipad-is-the-future
Why Apple?s iPad will kill today?s computers
Friday, April 02, 2010
"Normal people don't like today's computers. Most loathe them because they can't fully understand their absurd complexity and arcane conventions," Jesus Diaz writes for Gizmodo. "That's why the iPad will kill today's computers, just like the latter killed computers running with punchcards and command lines."
"Of course, the iPad?the actual product that millions will buy in the coming months?won't replace all computers. The entire world is not going to run just on tablets, just like the world doesn't run only on smartphones and personal computers now," Diaz writes. "But Steve Jobs' Next Big Thing is the first computer that requires no training whatsoever, one that is truly accessible and useful for everyone. Just like the iPhone changed the idea of what a phone should be without anyone truly realizing it, Apple's new computer will completely and permanently change our idea of what a computer is and how it should behave."
Diaz writes, "The perception change will be so deep that it will kill Mac OS X, Windows and Linux as we know them today. At one point during this decade, you will no longer have a billion folders and file icons floating in a virtual desktop. There will be no more baffling setup screens. No more shortcuts to work around limitations and old conventions. These frustrating barriers?built during decades of evolution?are what make normal people hate computers. These barriers have now been obliterated, first by the iPhone and now by the iPad. Everyone will be using computers similar to the iPad. Not in terms of hardware, form factor, and specs. But on its philosophy."
Apropos . . . here's something interesting:."[/I]
Regarding the article...Yes and No- The digital world has become to graduated for anything so utopian, but on the whole...I think most computer users agree it would be nice if things were less complicated. Apple does this very well.
On the flip side, there are too many users today that rely upon fairly complex computer programs and knowledge. That is never going to go away, in fact quite the opposite. There is always going to be a huge market for the power user, gamer, programmer.
What's got me horrified and a lot of other people too, is that Apple is going to drop Intel processors for these A4's and we will no longer have the ability to use other operating systems and the like with our Mac's.
Worst off if they decide to lock their machines down to the App Store, restrict our freedom with our machines and force us use the iPad UI instead of windows UI.
Apple hasn't released the MacBook Pro updates in quite some time, which leads me to believe they intend to create pent up demand in that market and force people to switch to something very radical.
??? Apple has NEVER used Intel processors in their iPhone, iPod Touch, iPod, iPad only in their desktops.
There's no way Apple would use ARMs in their desktop and laptop products because they are too under powered.
That being said there's nothing to stop Apple building their own Intel based processors and showing the computing world how it should be done. Apple would simply only need to create its own drivers for their own chipsets which is does in BootCamp anyway so backwards compatibility isn't really san issue.