Rumor: Apple once again said to be strongly considering ARM-based Macs
Apple's most popular computing devices, from the iPhone and iPad to MacBook Pro and iMac, could all be powered by the same ARM-based processors, if the company were to decide to make such a switch, according to a new report.
Citing a "reliable" source, French Apple enthusiast site MacBidouille reported this weekend that Apple is exploring new ARM-powered Macs that would feature a "large format" Magic Trackpad built into the keyboard. Apple is said to be far along in development of these machines, but is "reluctant" to make the switch too early and hurt its Mac lineup.
The systems are said to be running a "completely equivalent" OS X operating system in ARM, with several prototype machines already said to have been developed. Interestingly, these machines are said to rely on multiple ARM CPUs, each with multiple cores.
Specifically, it was said that Apple has developed an iMac desktop with four or eight 64-bit quad-core CPUs, while a Mac mini is said to have been made with four such cores. In addition, it was claimed that Apple has developed a 13-inch MacBook sporting up to eight 64-bit quad-core ARM chips.
Apple's SVP of worldwide marketing Phil Schiller introduces the A7 system-on-chip.
Of course, Apple already made a switch along these lines once, in a massive transition from IBM's PowerPC chips to Intel's line of processors. That switch proved beneficial to Apple, allowing its machines to run Windows and also tapping into Intel's speedier chips, and as a result Mac sales went to new highs.
As for ARM-based Macs, rumors of such machines floating around in Apple's secretive labs have existed for some time. One three-year old report claimed that Apple had built a MacBook Air powered by the same A5 chip as the iPad 2.
In the subsequent years since that rumor, Apple's custom mobile processors found in the iPhone and iPad have only become more powerful. The company's latest silicon, the A7 that powers the iPad Air, iPhone 5s and Retina iPad mini, is a 64-bit chip that's been called a "desktop-class" processor.
Citing a "reliable" source, French Apple enthusiast site MacBidouille reported this weekend that Apple is exploring new ARM-powered Macs that would feature a "large format" Magic Trackpad built into the keyboard. Apple is said to be far along in development of these machines, but is "reluctant" to make the switch too early and hurt its Mac lineup.
The systems are said to be running a "completely equivalent" OS X operating system in ARM, with several prototype machines already said to have been developed. Interestingly, these machines are said to rely on multiple ARM CPUs, each with multiple cores.
Specifically, it was said that Apple has developed an iMac desktop with four or eight 64-bit quad-core CPUs, while a Mac mini is said to have been made with four such cores. In addition, it was claimed that Apple has developed a 13-inch MacBook sporting up to eight 64-bit quad-core ARM chips.
Apple's SVP of worldwide marketing Phil Schiller introduces the A7 system-on-chip.
Of course, Apple already made a switch along these lines once, in a massive transition from IBM's PowerPC chips to Intel's line of processors. That switch proved beneficial to Apple, allowing its machines to run Windows and also tapping into Intel's speedier chips, and as a result Mac sales went to new highs.
As for ARM-based Macs, rumors of such machines floating around in Apple's secretive labs have existed for some time. One three-year old report claimed that Apple had built a MacBook Air powered by the same A5 chip as the iPad 2.
In the subsequent years since that rumor, Apple's custom mobile processors found in the iPhone and iPad have only become more powerful. The company's latest silicon, the A7 that powers the iPad Air, iPhone 5s and Retina iPad mini, is a 64-bit chip that's been called a "desktop-class" processor.
Comments
Take a look at the Windows platform. How well is Windows RT doing?
Why wouldn't they make the move to ARM? Clearly they have plans to do so otherwise they wouldn't have machines already running in the labs. It's just a matter of time, I'd stake money on it happening.
This rumour again? Good grief. No, Apple will not move any Macs to ARM technology. Why? Windows compatibility. One of the strongest arguments against Macs in the PowerPC age was that they could run Windows applications. A move to Intel killed that argument. No Macs are mixed into Windows environments will incredible ease. Switching away from Intel on some models would confuse the market. It would be an incredibly stupid thing to do. There is zero real benefit to moving to ARM with the Mac.
Take a look at the Windows platform. How well is Windows RT doing?
As someone who has had 4 operating systems running on a single Mac, I sympathise with your position. I also had Windoze running very successfully on my 12" PowerPC PowerBook (remember those) however and in fact, in what I was using it for which required a USB <----> RS232C dongle, it was 100% reliable. However, perhaps it is time to move on (although I am not necessarily arguing for the move as I do not understand fully the implications). Some benefits might be, a code base that converges with iOS and the efficiency gains contingent with that and also, greater self-determination. I believe that Apple was badly let down toward the end of the PowerPC era with processor development on their behalf failing badly. Perhaps Intel's processor developments too are headed in a direction that will not favour Apple before too long. Another advantage would be greater scope in specific system variants, beyond iOS and Mac OS X both. The time is coming I think.
Why not. Nobody thought Apple could move to Intel because of the technical issues (big endian, little endian topic). And they did - seamlessly.
To me, over 35 years, Apple is a company that performs miracles.
And why not move on, as someone said? This is the world of tablets now.
In our household, we all had MacBooks over the years.
Now we have one MacBook, iPhones, Kindle Fires (great device, BTW), and now I use an Acer Chromebook (awesome laptop). We only need a MacBook for iTunes. Even my daughter only uses iPhone 99% of the time.
No longer really need Windows or OS X too much.
The world is really diversified and the ball is in Apple's court to make Windows incompatible Macs - if that is the case.
And why can't Apple make a Bootcamp equivalent system on a different processor?
Really, Apple does perform miracles.
I'm not an Apple fanboy (anymore), since I use Android/Chrome OS most of the day, but agnostic. Also have an Android based e-Ink reader (Nook Simple Touch).
I bet an Apple based ARM OS world would blow people's socks off. And they would be cheaper???
P
I guess Apple knows the stats for who is running Windows (either as Bootcamp or via other software such as Parallels) and could make a judgement call.
Reality is that Apple have proved that developing their own ARM based processors gives them a massive technology advantage in phone/tablet space so moving to this on their notebook platforms must be a serious consideration.
No, three times. From Apple II 6502 family of processors to the 68000 of the Macintosh to the PPC to Intel and now to ARM.
What would happen if a MacBook and an iPad hooked up?
Apple Special Event - 2nd Generation MacBook Air Introduction
A MacBook Air/iPad hybrid would basically be a 12 inch iPad Pro that would have a MacBook Air keyboard dock with a glass track pad.
A 256GB Retina iPad Pro LTE with a Wacom digitizer, and a Macbook Air keyboard dock with a glass track pad, would be the dream machine.
Logically, Apple would extend its multi-touch UI to desktop Mac apps through the acquisition of Parallels to run both Mac and Windows desktop apps with Parallels Access built in.
Introducing Parallels Access
All Things Digital: Controlling a PC or Mac, iPad-Style
http://allthingsd.com/20130827/controlling-a-pc-or-mac-ipad-style/
You're missing some major aspects of the discussion. Ask yourself:
Personally, I know very few and of the half dozen or so that do run Windows on a Mac for testing purposes they are all what I'd describe as power users who would not be in the market to replace their MacBook Pro with a $700-800 12" MacBook Air that runs on ARM as they are completely different customer types.
So if they put an ARM chip in a low-cost, machine running Mac OS X and you'll the Mac behind even though it doesn't change the processor on any of the other Macs? How does that make sense to you?
The main problem is incompatibility with the rest of the world (read Windows and Linux on Intel x86). Hopefully Apple will keep the Mac x86, or they will repeat previous catastrophic mistakes. In such a case, the only way would be migrating to Windows.
Actually, what Apple should do is just the opposite: eventually migrating iOS to the x86.
Keep well away from anything Microsoft!!!!
If anyone is relying on Windows still, that is there lookout.
Why not. Nobody thought Apple could move to Intel because of the technical issues (big endian, little endian topic). And they did - seamlessly.
endianness didn't cause anyone to thing PPC to Intel wasn't possible.
rather, it was a deep dislike of Intel in reference to the mhz myth - RISC vs. CISC showed the large efficiency gains in the processor architecture that was 15 years newer, but Intel and Microsoft were able to squash the actual performances differences by marketing 1, 2 and 3 ghz processor speeds, ignoring the lack of performance gains and supporting the marketing fluff.
Furthermore, the real reason Apple had to switch is that Moto was dying and IBM was viewing Apple as an after thought - the G5's lack of development showed IBM's cards in terms of not developing the processors more for Apple. IBM went for embedded processors with PPC and very special cases like the Playstation. Apple was being ignored as a customer (in terms of being able to keep up with the marketing of Intel) ...remember the last G5s?? they were simply over clocked and super fanned noise boxes.
The writer of this article ain't never heard of the Mororola 68000 based Mac. So therefore, the original 128K Mac must have used PowerPC chips!
Long live Mode32 and dirty ROMs!
I think this rumor will make more sense when we see what's coming in OS X 10.10.
I think it's distinctly possible that Apple will release something that runs "OS X" with a physical keyboard and trackpad, that runs on ARM. If there are a tonne of people who love and use iPads, and iPads are on ARM, why wouldn't it be possible for a subset of "Macs" to run on ARM? No one cares about running Windows on their iPad. This makes me wonder whether they could perhaps brand an ARM "Mac" as something different. Something that makes it distinct, like "MacPad" but not that specifically. Maybe "Mac Light", or maybe even the WHOLE "air" category could switch to ARM, and the "air" would make the distinction.
Regardless, if they did this, they'd end up with 2 types of Mac. The new Mac Pro didn't just get designed for nothing. It would definitely stay on x86, and so would highend MacBook Pros.
Given that XCode made it (relatively) straight forward to compile fat binaries for PPC/Intel, they could resurrect that and make it relatively easy to compile fat binaries for Intel/ARM. It's part of the Mach binary format for a reason!
You're missing some major aspects of the discussion. Ask yourself:
Personally, I know very few and of the half dozen or so that do run Windows on a Mac for testing purposes they are all what I'd describe as power users who would not be in the market to replace their MacBook Pro with a $700-800 12" MacBook Air that runs on ARM as they are completely different customer types.
Nail on the head. Apple was always criticized for not being upgradable and yet I remember reading many years ago that only a tiny percentage of people (Windows users included) ever did upgrade anything at all on their computers. Windows compatibility is important but the ability to run Windows on your Mac is less important. Specially, as you say, on a MBA or similar. The number of people who buy MBAs to run Windows exclusively must be tiny.
Why is the assumption always that ARM would have to replace Intel? Is there any reason that certain apps and parts of the OS couldn't be compiled for both architectures, and the motherboard contains both? Just like the GPU can be switched to low power integrated when the task allows, and switched to the higher power discreet as needed, the ARM chip could do most of the basic stuff, at very low power, and then hand off to the intel chip when needed? I can even imagine something similar to the new FTL compiler for Safari, so code is compiled first for ARM, and when parts need more power they are JIT compiled for Intel, with the Intel CPU handling the compile so it happens fast.
Aren't they already doing a bit of this with GrandCentralDispatch and OpenCL? Where the actual bare metal code is compiled on the machine for the specific CPU/GPU environment available? And, added benefit, when running on wall power, the machine is now an 8 core machine, and certain "background" tasks could go to ARM while Intel does the heavy lifting. And all PowerNap functionality would be ARM, to minimize drain while not actively working.
I am layman to be sure, so if there is some fundamental law of the universe that makes this not possible, be gentle.
Gordon