Apple was on PowerPc and then switched to Intel because PowerPc was moving ahead too slowly. And then they went "mainstream" with Intel, with a supported CPU which received updates regularly, along with everybody else. In "mobile" they can do what they want since they have such a high market share and sell in volumes. But Apple didn't start its mobile adventure with a custom made CPU/GPU. They first went "mainstream" there as well. So, if Apple uses ARM for their Mac line. What happens? They will: a) have to move the entire Mac line to ARM (from the Air to the Pro) or b) have OSX run on two different architectures simultaneously. Which is a complete mess. If Apple moves to their own CPU (sort of like the A series) then they will have to constantly upgrade and develop an entire CPU/GPU system just for their Mac line, which doesn't sell enough to support such an investment. So all in all. No. Just no. It doesn't make any sense now to switch from Intel to ARM (in my opinion) because ARM is pushing slowly into "computer" territory and doesn't offer a wide enough array of CPUs (to my knowledge) to cover the Mac line from "Mini" to "Pro".
"To the man whose only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail." Apple had many design criteria in addition to processor speed. It switched from PPC to Intel because Intel had recently experienced a manufacturing breakthrough that dramatically reduced the heat produced by its processors. By contrast, PPC processors required mated cooling modules. Remember that the Mac community were anxiously awaiting the PowerBook G5. However, a G5-based laptop was impossible to engineer.
IBM saw itself as a Big Iron producer. It refused to devote engineering resources to designing PPC processors with reduced heat production. This was ironic because the G3 had been substantially cooler than the extant Intel processors. As a result, MacBook Airs, thin iMacs, and other computers that Apple wanted to produce would have been impossible using the processors that IBM wanted to produce. Part of the problem appears to have been that IBM thought that it had the upper hand in its relationship with Apple. IBM almost instantly changed its tune after Apple announced the switch to Intel. However, Steve had spoken. It was too late.
The Intel fanboys of the era were convinced that Apple had come to its senses at last. In their minds, Apple had switched to the bestest processor that ever was or that ever could be. They did not understand Apple at all and still do not understand Apple. Apple said that it had always maintained a current build of OS X for Intel processors. With the switch to Intel, the Intel fanboys seemed to think that Apple would follow a Microsoft strategy of tossing multi-platform support and optimize for Intel to the exclusion of all other processors.
Yet, Apple introduced OS X 10.5 not on the Mac but on the original iPhone. The notion that Apple would become beholden to Intel exclusively made absolutely no sense. It flew in the face of the facts before our eyes. Remember that OpenStep ran on Motorola 68k, Motorola 88k, Intel, HP PA, SPARC, and other architectures. If the French rumor is true, then OS X runs on a least three processors. I would bet that it runs on more.
The notion selling computers based on multiple processor architectures would confuse the market is just silly. To the user, Apple's switches from 68k to PPC and from PPC to Intel were transparent. Old software worked just fine on new computers. The change may confuse a few nerds, but many nerds are confused already.
As for Windows compatibility, it seems that some members of this forum have not been paying attention. Windows-based computers are a dying breed. Apple believes in skating to where the puck will be rather than to where the puck is. Making decisions based on Windows-compatibility is skating to where the puck was.
Contrary to popular opinion the world hasn't converted to tablets. My iPad Air is the most underutelized tech product bought in ages. Prefer reading NY Times on Macbook Air. iPad shines at presentation, that's about it for this user. I think the pendulum will swing back to laptops and predict the tablet thing will wane like netbooks. I don't think it's impossible to run a laptop on ARM but I believe Intel will consistantly outperform it. For that reason I believe this is an old rumor AI has given new life to.
Every year with this rumor. Yeesh. Not gonna happen folks. Current ARM processors can barley multitask for Pete's sake, and it's not like Apple and Intel have this contentious relationship or something, despite all the old fanboys who wish it were so as they long for the PowerPC days.
The first consideration, I would think, in using Apple's ultra-efficient ARM processors would be power savings: significantly longer battery life, without sacrificing the ability to run desktop-class applications. (Like someone mentioned above, perhaps even an unheard-of 24-hour battery life for a desktop-class notebook.) Right behind that consideration would be the ability to run both iOS and OSX apps--or, taking the idea one step further, an actual convergence of iOS and OSX. (I don't pretend to be an expert on the coding particulars of Apple's mobile and desktop operating systems, but I do remember hearing early in the life of the iPhone and iOS that they share the same OSX kernel.) And I believe that pressures from the Microsoft's ostensible convergence of mobile and desktop operating systems with Windows 8 could tend to drive that decision on Apple's part.
As to Windows compatibility, I believe that may be a matter left to true desktop/notebook systems, since, at least for now, higher-end processors appear to be needed to run it natively. (Microsoft's Surface Pro 3, while practically as portable as the iPad, utilizes the Intel Core i3, for example.) Already, however, even without a software emulator or low-level boot assistant like BootCamp, my iPad Retina can easily and, for the most part, efficiently, access both my work PC and my MacBook at home, by way of secure Internet streaming (VPN). (At one time I bought a copy of Windows 7 to install and use on my MacBook, but ended up not using it because I could access all but the most advanced functions of my PC right from my MacBook using VPN.)
Even so, it would not be inconceivable for Apple to work with iOS and/or OSX developers to come up with serviceable software Windows emulators that could help bridge the gap, if they decided to convert a cheaper Mac line to ARM processors--Parallels and VMWare clients for iOS already exist. On the other hand, I can't imagine Apple going with ARM for their higher-end iMacs, MacBook Pros or Mac Pros, or discontinuing native Windows operation via BootCamp on those systems. Seems to me the idea would be to have the best of both worlds.
The 64-bit ARM chips are not significantly slower than a variety of x86 chips, but they use an order of magnitude less power.
Not significantly slower? You're kidding, right?
Yes, the best ARM chips are equivalent to (and in many cases better than) Intel's Atom line. (But that's NOT what runs the current Macs.) Yes, the best ARM chips are roughly equivalent to the bottom of the line i3 chips for most (NOT ALL) functions. The best ARM chips are almost equivalent to some i5 chips, which Apple uses for its slowest/least expensive Macs, for most (NOT ALL) functions. But no current ARM chip (not even the 64-bit variants like Apple's) is in the class of the i7 chips which Apple DOES USE in the MacBook Air, rMBP, and iMac.
Quote:
By going massively parallel, Apple can make devices that are more powerful and use less energy at the same time.
Making an OS so that it takes advantage of a massively parallel architecture is extremely difficult. Hell, the Finder in Mac OS X does not even take advantage of all 12 cores (24 threads) in the top of the line Mac Pro. You think it's going to be feasible in the near future to take advantage of massive parallelism in an OS based upon ARM? To top it off, no ARM architecture is designed for massive parallelism. It was a major leap back in the PowerPC days to the 604 that supported parallelism in hardware. Intel's standard x86 line doesn't support it in hardware either. It takes Intel's Xeon line to do it without a LOT of additional work.
It will take a major shift in the ARM architecture to natively support massive parallelism. Yes, they could (and probably will) do it -- eventually. You just won't see it anytime soon. Hell, Intel demoed an 80 core system several years ago. They still haven't brought anything even close to that to market.
Quote:
Part of switching to x86 was improved performance per Watt.
The reason for going ARM on iOS devices was the lack of comparable x86 choices, and after many years, Intel is still lagging behind, while ARM's 64-bit cores have been rapidly catching up.
The reason for Apple going to an ARM architecture for the iPhone was power requirements, plain and simple. The ARM architecture was just fast enough. Apple has made great strides in its implementation of the ARM architecture, but it's not equivalent to Intel's mainstream chips and won't be for a few years. The ARM chips are not the same as Intel's main stream chips.
Intel is making great strides in its ultra low power chips. Intel's reduction in power requirements and processing capabilities in these chips. BayTrail is a significant step forward. Intel's motion forward in this type of chip is much, much faster than it is moving with the other end of the spectrum -- the Xeon chips or the Itanium chips.
Additionally, the I/O architecture of the ARM chips is not the same as Intel's mainstream chips with their support chips. Apple's iOS devices effectively have just four inputs: screen/buttons, lightning (one only), sound in, sound out. The typical Mac has many more -- even a MacBook Air. This will be an additional architecture change above and beyond that of massively parallel processing you mention above.
Quote:
Parallels can license/develop Rosetta-type technology and Windows compatibility won't be an issue, and who knows, maybe Apple and M$ have a deal for a full desktop-class ARM based windows, which would also help M$' tablet/laptop hybrids.
Again, you're kidding, right? It's not an issue if you can live with a system that runs at 75% of the original, native speed (and in some cases as slow as 25% of the original speed). Most people can't take that hit. Most can't. I tried it back in the day. It was acceptable for some tasks but not for most. That was why VirtualPC was a viable industry, but most can't.
And, Apple's ARM variants are NOT code compatible with the rest of the industry's ARM chips. It is unlikely that Microsoft (or any other mainstream OS developer) will write a variant of their OS to specifically support Apple's version of the ARM chip.
Apple has the luxury of issuing a new version of its OSes (whether Mac OS or iOS) when it issues a new chip such as the A7. Apple has the ability to work on that new OS variant many months in advance so that the new variant of iOS is ready when the chip ships -- and still keep the capabilities quiet. Is Apple going to be able to get other OS vendors to work on their OSes in advance -- AND still keep them under wraps -- so that those OSes are ready when the chip ships? That is extremely unlikely.
Quote:
The technology is there, so it's just a matter of marketing.
It would also be easy to use ARM in the consumer space and for server products, and use x86 or an x86/ARM combo for pro laptops and desktops. Apple already has multiple CPUs in the system so this is totally doable and allows Apple to go places where that competition can't easily follow.
The technology ISN'T there YET. It will be in a few years (say 5-10), but not today. It isn't just a matter of marketing.
Apple does NOT have "multiple CPUs in the system" with regard to any single OS or general system architecture. There's Apple's own ARM based chips for iOS and Intel based chips for Mac OS. That's it. You don't even see x86 compatible chips (e.g., AMD's chips) in Apple's Macs. Why? because it would add more complexity to the OS to support other x86 based chips. Supporting ARM with Mac OS effectively would require two distinct and different versions of Mac OS. Not only building it, but supporting it, would be a huge increase on Apple's costs.
There are simply too any pieces of necessary software for various tasks (especially gaming or belonging to a corporate network/exchange domain) that are only available or function well on Windows.
What SW is so important for the casual user that would go for a 12" notebook if Apple offered this solution among it's Mac line it would be a market failure?
Yes, the best ARM chips are equivalent to (and in many cases better than) Intel's Atom line. (But that's NOT what runs the current Macs.) Yes, the best ARM chips are roughly equivalent to the bottom of the line i3 chips for most (NOT ALL) functions. The best ARM chips are almost equivalent to some i5 chips, which Apple uses for its slowest/least expensive Macs, for most (NOT ALL) functions. But no current ARM chip (not even the 64-bit variants like Apple's) is in the class of the i7 chips which Apple DOES USE in the MacBook Air, rMBP, and iMac.
You seemed so sure of yourself and knowledgeable that I wasn't inclined to question you. Nevertheless, I went over to store.apple.com just to check some details, and they say that all the iMacs and MacBook Air and MacBook Pro use the i5. Am I missing something here? It looks like one of Mac Minis uses an i7, and the Mac Pro uses something else (presumably even more powerful).
So if I combine what you say with what the Apple store says, the current ARM chips are almost equivalent to what Apple uses in most of their Macs. So if today the ARM is in the ballpark, is it strange to speculate that tomorrow the ARM might be used in the Mac? Seems plausible to me.
The technology ISN'T there YET. It will be in a few years (say 5-10), but not today. It isn't just a matter of marketing.
Apple said it's so (which we don't have to believe) but AnandTech verified that it is so (which I do believe). So why do you think the technology isn't here yet if it's already here with last year's A-series chip with a much slower clock rate than could reasonably be used in a notebook? Why do we need 6 to 11 more iterations past the A7 chip for this to be here?
"At the launch of the iPhone 5s, Apple referred to the A7 as being "desktop class" - it turns out that wasn't an exaggeration. […] there's still a ton of room to improve performance. One obvious example would be through frequency scaling. Cyclone is clocked very conservatively…"
Desktop machines and Windows 8 is struggling and not entirely loved by users. Intel is likewise struggling as they are joined at the hip in a symbiotic relationship. If Apple is going to make a move now is the time.
They already design the chips, why not use them. It will further help justify development costs and hopefully earn higher margins and customers less expensive rigs
I can hear the third party developers grinding their teeth from way over here...
I think you're mistaken. Third party developers don't write a ton of assembly language, so staying current with Apple's architecture is not going to hurt them too badly. What you're hearing is the teeth grinding of a big company. A big company that makes very expensive x86 chips that might not be so popular in the future.
An ARM based Mac would have a Mac OS that natively runs both Mac apps and iOS apps in the same environment.
The continued existence of some Mac apps would be my concern. If we really are moving to a post-PC market, will developers have an appetite for reworking their apps to run on a different platform? They may decide it's not worth the effort to do a complete rewrite for a shrinking market. Depending on when it happens, there could even be some residual "rewrite fatigue" since it's only been eight years since the last time they had to do it.
Speaking of which, the last time developers had to rewrite their apps for Mac is was for x86 processors. Not being a developer I don't know, but I wonder if it was easier for companies like Adobe that already had Windows versions of their software to rework for x86 than it would be to write for a whole new processor? Is that even an issue?
The continued existence of some Mac apps would be my concern. If we really are moving to a post-PC market, will developers have an appetite for <span style="line-height:1.4em;">reworking their apps to run on a different platform? They may decide it's not worth the effort to do a complete rewrite for a shrinking market. Depending on when it happens, there could even be some residual "rewrite fatigue" since it's only been eight years since the last time they had to do it.</span>
Speaking of which, the last time developers had to rewrite their apps for Mac is was for x86 processors. Not being a developer I don't know, but I wonder if it was easier for companies like Adobe that already had Windows versions of their software to rework for x86 than it would be to write for a whole new processor? Is that even an issue?
1) Why assume that an app will cease to exist because there is another option for a low-cost Apple-branded "PC" added to their current Mac line up?
2) If developers had an appetite to move from PPC to x86_64 when the number of Macs sold was much, much lower and Windows had an ever greater per unit market share then why assume that they'll jump ship now, especially with the existence of the Mac App Store and Apple's long history of making architectural transitions easy for developers that have followed their guidelines?
3) We're not talking about the Mac Pro being run on a 24-core A-8 chip, we're talking about a much simpler machine for the casual notebook user.
Yup, unfortunately, remove the ability to run windows natively and I would have to leave the Mac behind. I may not need to use windows often, but when I do, it is essential. Moving to the intel chipset was the only reason I was able to go back to using macs.
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.
The ability to run Windows is still an important selling point even if they may not actually intend to run it. Who says Apple has ARM computers in their lab? Apple surely didn't and wouldn't say that.
The ability to run Windows is still an important selling point even if they may not actually intend to run it. Who says Apple has ARM computers in their lab? Apple surely didn't and wouldn't say that.
Maybe so but there will come a point where Apple will want to cut the user off from Windows, the transition to ARM would be the perfect opportunity. Apple doesn't have to confirm that they have ARM based Macs in the labs, it's a given.
You're missing some major aspects of the discussion. Ask yourself:
How many Mac users use Bootcamp or a VM so they can run Windows?
How many sub-$1000 MacBook Airs are being used as Windows computers?
How would an entry-level, low-cost, ARM-based Mac hurt Mac adoption more over having Macs that only run expensive Intel Core chips if all processing power isn't needed by entry level users and the biggest hurdle is cost, not the ability to use Windows in 2014?
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.
Apple is reaching end of life with Intel cpu's, there are so many things that can be done when you control the OS and the cpu development in-house the sky is the limit with Apple, and if there is a new device coming this fall, such a device can only reach it's true potential by having the cpu and OS designed in-house, Apple is that company. Such a company will in the future leverage all of it's in-house tech to move beyond Intel and Samsung. It is just a matter of time.
Comments
IBM saw itself as a Big Iron producer. It refused to devote engineering resources to designing PPC processors with reduced heat production. This was ironic because the G3 had been substantially cooler than the extant Intel processors. As a result, MacBook Airs, thin iMacs, and other computers that Apple wanted to produce would have been impossible using the processors that IBM wanted to produce. Part of the problem appears to have been that IBM thought that it had the upper hand in its relationship with Apple. IBM almost instantly changed its tune after Apple announced the switch to Intel. However, Steve had spoken. It was too late.
The Intel fanboys of the era were convinced that Apple had come to its senses at last. In their minds, Apple had switched to the bestest processor that ever was or that ever could be. They did not understand Apple at all and still do not understand Apple. Apple said that it had always maintained a current build of OS X for Intel processors. With the switch to Intel, the Intel fanboys seemed to think that Apple would follow a Microsoft strategy of tossing multi-platform support and optimize for Intel to the exclusion of all other processors.
Yet, Apple introduced OS X 10.5 not on the Mac but on the original iPhone. The notion that Apple would become beholden to Intel exclusively made absolutely no sense. It flew in the face of the facts before our eyes. Remember that OpenStep ran on Motorola 68k, Motorola 88k, Intel, HP PA, SPARC, and other architectures. If the French rumor is true, then OS X runs on a least three processors. I would bet that it runs on more.
The notion selling computers based on multiple processor architectures would confuse the market is just silly. To the user, Apple's switches from 68k to PPC and from PPC to Intel were transparent. Old software worked just fine on new computers. The change may confuse a few nerds, but many nerds are confused already.
As for Windows compatibility, it seems that some members of this forum have not been paying attention. Windows-based computers are a dying breed. Apple believes in skating to where the puck will be rather than to where the puck is. Making decisions based on Windows-compatibility is skating to where the puck was.
The first consideration, I would think, in using Apple's ultra-efficient ARM processors would be power savings: significantly longer battery life, without sacrificing the ability to run desktop-class applications. (Like someone mentioned above, perhaps even an unheard-of 24-hour battery life for a desktop-class notebook.) Right behind that consideration would be the ability to run both iOS and OSX apps--or, taking the idea one step further, an actual convergence of iOS and OSX. (I don't pretend to be an expert on the coding particulars of Apple's mobile and desktop operating systems, but I do remember hearing early in the life of the iPhone and iOS that they share the same OSX kernel.) And I believe that pressures from the Microsoft's ostensible convergence of mobile and desktop operating systems with Windows 8 could tend to drive that decision on Apple's part.
As to Windows compatibility, I believe that may be a matter left to true desktop/notebook systems, since, at least for now, higher-end processors appear to be needed to run it natively. (Microsoft's Surface Pro 3, while practically as portable as the iPad, utilizes the Intel Core i3, for example.) Already, however, even without a software emulator or low-level boot assistant like BootCamp, my iPad Retina can easily and, for the most part, efficiently, access both my work PC and my MacBook at home, by way of secure Internet streaming (VPN). (At one time I bought a copy of Windows 7 to install and use on my MacBook, but ended up not using it because I could access all but the most advanced functions of my PC right from my MacBook using VPN.)
Even so, it would not be inconceivable for Apple to work with iOS and/or OSX developers to come up with serviceable software Windows emulators that could help bridge the gap, if they decided to convert a cheaper Mac line to ARM processors--Parallels and VMWare clients for iOS already exist. On the other hand, I can't imagine Apple going with ARM for their higher-end iMacs, MacBook Pros or Mac Pros, or discontinuing native Windows operation via BootCamp on those systems. Seems to me the idea would be to have the best of both worlds.
The 64-bit ARM chips are not significantly slower than a variety of x86 chips, but they use an order of magnitude less power.
Not significantly slower? You're kidding, right?
Yes, the best ARM chips are equivalent to (and in many cases better than) Intel's Atom line. (But that's NOT what runs the current Macs.) Yes, the best ARM chips are roughly equivalent to the bottom of the line i3 chips for most (NOT ALL) functions. The best ARM chips are almost equivalent to some i5 chips, which Apple uses for its slowest/least expensive Macs, for most (NOT ALL) functions. But no current ARM chip (not even the 64-bit variants like Apple's) is in the class of the i7 chips which Apple DOES USE in the MacBook Air, rMBP, and iMac.
Making an OS so that it takes advantage of a massively parallel architecture is extremely difficult. Hell, the Finder in Mac OS X does not even take advantage of all 12 cores (24 threads) in the top of the line Mac Pro. You think it's going to be feasible in the near future to take advantage of massive parallelism in an OS based upon ARM? To top it off, no ARM architecture is designed for massive parallelism. It was a major leap back in the PowerPC days to the 604 that supported parallelism in hardware. Intel's standard x86 line doesn't support it in hardware either. It takes Intel's Xeon line to do it without a LOT of additional work.
It will take a major shift in the ARM architecture to natively support massive parallelism. Yes, they could (and probably will) do it -- eventually. You just won't see it anytime soon. Hell, Intel demoed an 80 core system several years ago. They still haven't brought anything even close to that to market.
Quote:
Part of switching to x86 was improved performance per Watt.
The reason for Apple going to an ARM architecture for the iPhone was power requirements, plain and simple. The ARM architecture was just fast enough. Apple has made great strides in its implementation of the ARM architecture, but it's not equivalent to Intel's mainstream chips and won't be for a few years. The ARM chips are not the same as Intel's main stream chips.
Intel is making great strides in its ultra low power chips. Intel's reduction in power requirements and processing capabilities in these chips. BayTrail is a significant step forward. Intel's motion forward in this type of chip is much, much faster than it is moving with the other end of the spectrum -- the Xeon chips or the Itanium chips.
Additionally, the I/O architecture of the ARM chips is not the same as Intel's mainstream chips with their support chips. Apple's iOS devices effectively have just four inputs: screen/buttons, lightning (one only), sound in, sound out. The typical Mac has many more -- even a MacBook Air. This will be an additional architecture change above and beyond that of massively parallel processing you mention above.
Again, you're kidding, right? It's not an issue if you can live with a system that runs at 75% of the original, native speed (and in some cases as slow as 25% of the original speed). Most people can't take that hit. Most can't. I tried it back in the day. It was acceptable for some tasks but not for most. That was why VirtualPC was a viable industry, but most can't.
And, Apple's ARM variants are NOT code compatible with the rest of the industry's ARM chips. It is unlikely that Microsoft (or any other mainstream OS developer) will write a variant of their OS to specifically support Apple's version of the ARM chip.
Apple has the luxury of issuing a new version of its OSes (whether Mac OS or iOS) when it issues a new chip such as the A7. Apple has the ability to work on that new OS variant many months in advance so that the new variant of iOS is ready when the chip ships -- and still keep the capabilities quiet. Is Apple going to be able to get other OS vendors to work on their OSes in advance -- AND still keep them under wraps -- so that those OSes are ready when the chip ships? That is extremely unlikely.
It would also be easy to use ARM in the consumer space and for server products, and use x86 or an x86/ARM combo for pro laptops and desktops. Apple already has multiple CPUs in the system so this is totally doable and allows Apple to go places where that competition can't easily follow.
The technology ISN'T there YET. It will be in a few years (say 5-10), but not today. It isn't just a matter of marketing.
Apple does NOT have "multiple CPUs in the system" with regard to any single OS or general system architecture. There's Apple's own ARM based chips for iOS and Intel based chips for Mac OS. That's it. You don't even see x86 compatible chips (e.g., AMD's chips) in Apple's Macs. Why? because it would add more complexity to the OS to support other x86 based chips. Supporting ARM with Mac OS effectively would require two distinct and different versions of Mac OS. Not only building it, but supporting it, would be a huge increase on Apple's costs.
What SW is so important for the casual user that would go for a 12" notebook if Apple offered this solution among it's Mac line it would be a market failure?
Not significantly slower? You're kidding, right?
Yes, the best ARM chips are equivalent to (and in many cases better than) Intel's Atom line. (But that's NOT what runs the current Macs.) Yes, the best ARM chips are roughly equivalent to the bottom of the line i3 chips for most (NOT ALL) functions. The best ARM chips are almost equivalent to some i5 chips, which Apple uses for its slowest/least expensive Macs, for most (NOT ALL) functions. But no current ARM chip (not even the 64-bit variants like Apple's) is in the class of the i7 chips which Apple DOES USE in the MacBook Air, rMBP, and iMac.
You seemed so sure of yourself and knowledgeable that I wasn't inclined to question you. Nevertheless, I went over to store.apple.com just to check some details, and they say that all the iMacs and MacBook Air and MacBook Pro use the i5. Am I missing something here? It looks like one of Mac Minis uses an i7, and the Mac Pro uses something else (presumably even more powerful).
So if I combine what you say with what the Apple store says, the current ARM chips are almost equivalent to what Apple uses in most of their Macs. So if today the ARM is in the ballpark, is it strange to speculate that tomorrow the ARM might be used in the Mac? Seems plausible to me.
Apple said it's so (which we don't have to believe) but AnandTech verified that it is so (which I do believe). So why do you think the technology isn't here yet if it's already here with last year's A-series chip with a much slower clock rate than could reasonably be used in a notebook? Why do we need 6 to 11 more iterations past the A7 chip for this to be here?
They already design the chips, why not use them. It will further help justify development costs and hopefully earn higher margins and customers less expensive rigs
I can hear the third party developers grinding their teeth from way over here...
I think you're mistaken. Third party developers don't write a ton of assembly language, so staying current with Apple's architecture is not going to hurt them too badly. What you're hearing is the teeth grinding of a big company. A big company that makes very expensive x86 chips that might not be so popular in the future.
An ARM based Mac would have a Mac OS that natively runs both Mac apps and iOS apps in the same environment.
The continued existence of some Mac apps would be my concern. If we really are moving to a post-PC market, will developers have an appetite for reworking their apps to run on a different platform? They may decide it's not worth the effort to do a complete rewrite for a shrinking market. Depending on when it happens, there could even be some residual "rewrite fatigue" since it's only been eight years since the last time they had to do it.
Speaking of which, the last time developers had to rewrite their apps for Mac is was for x86 processors. Not being a developer I don't know, but I wonder if it was easier for companies like Adobe that already had Windows versions of their software to rework for x86 than it would be to write for a whole new processor? Is that even an issue?
1) Why assume that an app will cease to exist because there is another option for a low-cost Apple-branded "PC" added to their current Mac line up?
2) If developers had an appetite to move from PPC to x86_64 when the number of Macs sold was much, much lower and Windows had an ever greater per unit market share then why assume that they'll jump ship now, especially with the existence of the Mac App Store and Apple's long history of making architectural transitions easy for developers that have followed their guidelines?
3) We're not talking about the Mac Pro being run on a 24-core A-8 chip, we're talking about a much simpler machine for the casual notebook user.
Thanks, great link! It's hard to argue with Mr. Gassee in this case.
Yup, unfortunately, remove the ability to run windows natively and I would have to leave the Mac behind. I may not need to use windows often, but when I do, it is essential. Moving to the intel chipset was the only reason I was able to go back to using macs.
Good bye watch the door.
T he
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.
The ability to run Windows is still an important selling point even if they may not actually intend to run it. Who says Apple has ARM computers in their lab? Apple surely didn't and wouldn't say that.
T he
The ability to run Windows is still an important selling point even if they may not actually intend to run it. Who says Apple has ARM computers in their lab? Apple surely didn't and wouldn't say that.
Maybe so but there will come a point where Apple will want to cut the user off from Windows, the transition to ARM would be the perfect opportunity. Apple doesn't have to confirm that they have ARM based Macs in the labs, it's a given.
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.
Apple is reaching end of life with Intel cpu's, there are so many things that can be done when you control the OS and the cpu development in-house the sky is the limit with Apple, and if there is a new device coming this fall, such a device can only reach it's true potential by having the cpu and OS designed in-house, Apple is that company. Such a company will in the future leverage all of it's in-house tech to move beyond Intel and Samsung. It is just a matter of time.