There’s a lot more to making an ARM Mac than just slipping a new SoC in. While some keep dismissing it, the fact is that ARM doesn’t run x86 software. Yes, Apple likely has macOS running on ARM. It makes sense for them to keep playing with it. And if they wanted to, they could bring their mainstream apps over. But big software packages are something else. FCP, Logic Pro and software from Adobe, Microsoft and others are a good 100 million lines of code. You really can’t fix this with a compile, which some people naively think.
so the question is what Apple would do here. Could they convince small developers to go with it? Probably. But large developers would really have to,have a very good reason to go through this again. And as it’s nkt likely that Apple could use this for anything other than a Macbook, AMD just maybe, but not likely, a Mini, there might not be enough a market for all of this software.
so we would have to go back to the premise I first brought up a few years ago. That is that experts have found that about 80% of the slowdown when running emulation is due to a small number of chip instructions, somewhere around a dozen, or a bit more, depending on which chip families are being emulated by which other families. As Intel doesn’t have patents on individual instructions, Apple could take those few and incorporate them into their ARM chip. When xu6 software requires them, the chip would switch over to them for these calculations.
if Apple could get an A12X perhaps 40% faster than this A11, then with those extra instructions, that could work out about as well as a mid range i5 low power mobile chip for much less money that Apple pays Intel.
i could see that working.
Your looking at the high end, power user stuff. The stuff of MacBook Pros. Rather than seeing Apple trying to make an A-Series chip into Intel chip, I see them just nipping away at the low end with their laptop killer -- the iPad Pro... The first to go will be the MacBook -- but it won't be killed off, it will just float away into a cloud of irrelevancy...
I don't think that's a guess. Apple has already told us their direction:
Ya know... It really doesn't matter how anybody spins this. It is remarkable and it is a game changer. The wall between laptops and mobile devices continues to crumble.
By adding a keyboard, pointer and file system to the iPad Pro Apple has already challenged low and medium powered laptops. All they really need now is: 1) A mouse or touchpad replacing the pencil/pointer and let the pencil serve for drawing and markup. 2) Replace the lightening connector with Thunderbolt/USB-C.
At that point, the MacBook and MacBook Airs would be obsolete and irrelevant.
I think this is more likely what Apple might do, rather than port macOS to their A-series chips. A laptop that is very, very lightweight, very fast, runs a simple and elegant operating system which is already used by 100s of millions of people. Isn't that more likely? This way they can continue to sell Intel computers at a premium for people who require macOS (which isn't a growing segment of the population but rather a niche use case for power users, which Apple can exploit beautifully with machines and an OS for their needs).
Regarding the pointer, all they need is a touchpad that mimics the shape of the screen, then wherever you place a finger, it appears as a "touch" by blurring a finger sized shape on the screen in the same location. No arrow or other pointer needed, the OS is already designed around a "touch" which can be mimicked with a touchpad. The pointer doesn't float, it only appears when you touch the touchpad, just like iOS and the way it receives input. No need to train people on the new OS, it's not new, it's simply the same with additional pointing help - we're already some way there with tvOS and it's input device and paradigms. Imagine a laptop like this, it'd sell way more than laptops with macOS on them.
There's no need to or desire to "port macOS to their A-series chips". First, MacOS was ALREADY ported to the A-Series chips. That's where iOS came from. But, more importantly, all Apple has to do in order to fulfill their promise of making the iPad Pro a laptop killer is add a mouse or touchpad. Everything else is already there: the keyboard, the file system, the pointer and an actually more powerful processor than that of the MacBook. (And, at some point, improve connectivity & expandibility by switching from a lightening port to a thunderbolt.)
You know, it’s the full macOS Desktop they want, with regular macOS apps.
There’s a lot more to making an ARM Mac than just slipping a new SoC in. While some keep dismissing it, the fact is that ARM doesn’t run x86 software. Yes, Apple likely has macOS running on ARM. It makes sense for them to keep playing with it. And if they wanted to, they could bring their mainstream apps over. But big software packages are something else. FCP, Logic Pro and software from Adobe, Microsoft and others are a good 100 million lines of code. You really can’t fix this with a compile, which some people naively think.
All Apple ARM devices since the first iPhone were always running MacOS X. The kernel is the same, although the OS has different modules, for different purposes e.g. 'Cocoa Touch' instead of 'Cocoa'. If they wanted to, they could bring a MacBook Air like device tomorrow. I am pretty sure they are already working on the big applications, since they are forced to make this step sometime in the future, when Intel CPUs do no longer make sense in terms of energy efficiency and speed. Just like they did with the PowerPC.
so the question is what Apple would do here. Could they convince small developers to go with it? Probably. But large developers would really have to,have a very good reason to go through this again. And as it’s nkt likely that Apple could use this for anything other than a Macbook, AMD just maybe, but not likely, a Mini, there might not be enough a market for all of this software.
so we would have to go back to the premise I first brought up a few years ago. That is that experts have found that about 80% of the slowdown when running emulation is due to a small number of chip instructions, somewhere around a dozen, or a bit more, depending on which chip families are being emulated by which other families. As Intel doesn’t have patents on individual instructions, Apple could take those few and incorporate them into their ARM chip. When xu6 software requires them, the chip would switch over to them for these calculations.
if Apple could get an A12X perhaps 40% faster than this A11, then with those extra instructions, that could work out about as well as a mid range i5 low power mobile chip for much less money that Apple pays Intel.
i could see that working.
Apple will make the switch, when they feel that the time has come, and whoever wants to stay relevant will have to do the same, or will lose out the most powerful PC platform. And this is not fanboy talk here: the ARM64 architecture has way more potential than Intel's x64 architecture. Intel would have to create a new, binary incompatible architecture, to catch up to Apple and lacks the software, the OS and the customers.
Ya know... It really doesn't matter how anybody spins this. It is remarkable and it is a game changer. The wall between laptops and mobile devices continues to crumble.
By adding a keyboard, pointer and file system to the iPad Pro Apple has already challenged low and medium powered laptops. All they really need now is: 1) A mouse or touchpad replacing the pencil/pointer and let the pencil serve for drawing and markup. 2) Replace the lightening connector with Thunderbolt/USB-C.
At that point, the MacBook and MacBook Airs would be obsolete and irrelevant.
I think this is more likely what Apple might do, rather than port macOS to their A-series chips. A laptop that is very, very lightweight, very fast, runs a simple and elegant operating system which is already used by 100s of millions of people. Isn't that more likely? This way they can continue to sell Intel computers at a premium for people who require macOS (which isn't a growing segment of the population but rather a niche use case for power users, which Apple can exploit beautifully with machines and an OS for their needs).
Regarding the pointer, all they need is a touchpad that mimics the shape of the screen, then wherever you place a finger, it appears as a "touch" by blurring a finger sized shape on the screen in the same location. No arrow or other pointer needed, the OS is already designed around a "touch" which can be mimicked with a touchpad. The pointer doesn't float, it only appears when you touch the touchpad, just like iOS and the way it receives input. No need to train people on the new OS, it's not new, it's simply the same with additional pointing help - we're already some way there with tvOS and it's input device and paradigms. Imagine a laptop like this, it'd sell way more than laptops with macOS on them.
There's no need to or desire to "port macOS to their A-series chips". First, MacOS was ALREADY ported to the A-Series chips. That's where iOS came from. But, more importantly, all Apple has to do in order to fulfill their promise of making the iPad Pro a laptop killer is add a mouse or touchpad. Everything else is already there: the keyboard, the file system, the pointer and an actually more powerful processor than that of the MacBook. (And, at some point, improve connectivity & expandibility by switching from a lightening port to a thunderbolt.)
OS X on ARM ≠ iOS. You know this because we have watchOS, tvOS, and the HomePod firmware that are all also ARM-based that don't run iOS. They're all OS X with their own UIs that make up their own OSes. Allowing macOS to run on ARM, just as they made macOS run on x86_64 after running on x86_32 after running on PPC_64 and PPC-32 did not mean that each iteration was a different OS branding because the processing architecture was changed. The UI is still the same between PPC and x86 and it's designed for a traditional PC and the same is true if macOS runs on ARM_64. You can say you don't think it will happen. You can say you see why it would happen. You can say pretty much anything but you can't fucking say that macOS was already ported to ARM since they stropped macOS down to OS X core and rebuilt it for ARM and new the touch UI or suggest that macOS on ARM would simply be iOS.
There’s a lot more to making an ARM Mac than just slipping a new SoC in. While some keep dismissing it, the fact is that ARM doesn’t run x86 software. Yes, Apple likely has macOS running on ARM. It makes sense for them to keep playing with it. And if they wanted to, they could bring their mainstream apps over. But big software packages are something else. FCP, Logic Pro and software from Adobe, Microsoft and others are a good 100 million lines of code. You really can’t fix this with a compile, which some people naively think.
so the question is what Apple would do here. Could they convince small developers to go with it? Probably. But large developers would really have to,have a very good reason to go through this again. And as it’s nkt likely that Apple could use this for anything other than a Macbook, AMD just maybe, but not likely, a Mini, there might not be enough a market for all of this software.
so we would have to go back to the premise I first brought up a few years ago. That is that experts have found that about 80% of the slowdown when running emulation is due to a small number of chip instructions, somewhere around a dozen, or a bit more, depending on which chip families are being emulated by which other families. As Intel doesn’t have patents on individual instructions, Apple could take those few and incorporate them into their ARM chip. When xu6 software requires them, the chip would switch over to them for these calculations.
if Apple could get an A12X perhaps 40% faster than this A11, then with those extra instructions, that could work out about as well as a mid range i5 low power mobile chip for much less money that Apple pays Intel.
i could see that working.
Your looking at the high end, power user stuff. The stuff of MacBook Pros. Rather than seeing Apple trying to make an A-Series chip into Intel chip, I see them just nipping away at the low end with their laptop killer -- the iPad Pro... The first to go will be the MacBook -- but it won't be killed off, it will just float away into a cloud of irrelevancy...
I don't think that's a guess. Apple has already told us their direction:
It’s a completely different concept. I’m not talking about a Macbook Pro, I’m talking about a Macbook, with the M3 5-6 watt CPU. That’s fairly underpowered, but is lightweight, with a great screen. Remember that an iPad Pro 12.9” with keyboard, weighs more than the Macbook, and is thicker too. I’m not talking about the barely usable keyboard cover Apple produces.
to have that Macbook with a more powerful 5 watt chip would be something a lot of people would want. If Apple could get it running x86 software without modification, that would be perfect. And estimates are that Apple’s A-X Series chips cost about $40. That’s a lot less than Intel’s M3 Series with support chips. So Apple would save money too. Possibly the Macbook could drop in cost buy $100, which would be good too, as it’s a bit too much for a lot of people, as it doesn’t fill the niche the AIR does.
Ya know... It really doesn't matter how anybody spins this. It is remarkable and it is a game changer. The wall between laptops and mobile devices continues to crumble.
By adding a keyboard, pointer and file system to the iPad Pro Apple has already challenged low and medium powered laptops. All they really need now is: 1) A mouse or touchpad replacing the pencil/pointer and let the pencil serve for drawing and markup. 2) Replace the lightening connector with Thunderbolt/USB-C.
At that point, the MacBook and MacBook Airs would be obsolete and irrelevant.
I think this is more likely what Apple might do, rather than port macOS to their A-series chips. A laptop that is very, very lightweight, very fast, runs a simple and elegant operating system which is already used by 100s of millions of people. Isn't that more likely? This way they can continue to sell Intel computers at a premium for people who require macOS (which isn't a growing segment of the population but rather a niche use case for power users, which Apple can exploit beautifully with machines and an OS for their needs).
Regarding the pointer, all they need is a touchpad that mimics the shape of the screen, then wherever you place a finger, it appears as a "touch" by blurring a finger sized shape on the screen in the same location. No arrow or other pointer needed, the OS is already designed around a "touch" which can be mimicked with a touchpad. The pointer doesn't float, it only appears when you touch the touchpad, just like iOS and the way it receives input. No need to train people on the new OS, it's not new, it's simply the same with additional pointing help - we're already some way there with tvOS and it's input device and paradigms. Imagine a laptop like this, it'd sell way more than laptops with macOS on them.
There's no need to or desire to "port macOS to their A-series chips". First, MacOS was ALREADY ported to the A-Series chips. That's where iOS came from. But, more importantly, all Apple has to do in order to fulfill their promise of making the iPad Pro a laptop killer is add a mouse or touchpad. Everything else is already there: the keyboard, the file system, the pointer and an actually more powerful processor than that of the MacBook. (And, at some point, improve connectivity & expandibility by switching from a lightening port to a thunderbolt.)
You know, it’s the full macOS Desktop they want, with regular macOS apps.
Huh? Who wants it? And why? iOS can already run the most commonly used MacOS apps -- or valid substitutes. OK, so it won't run high end photo editing software -- at least not for a long time. <shrug> Most people don't even know what those apps are -- or care.
But, an iPad that is as efficient at maintaining a calendar, generating a presentation, producing a term paper or maintaining spreadsheet as a MacBook -- or watching YouTube....
No, the MacBook is going to same place as the iPod...
There’s a lot more to making an ARM Mac than just slipping a new SoC in. While some keep dismissing it, the fact is that ARM doesn’t run x86 software. Yes, Apple likely has macOS running on ARM. It makes sense for them to keep playing with it. And if they wanted to, they could bring their mainstream apps over. But big software packages are something else. FCP, Logic Pro and software from Adobe, Microsoft and others are a good 100 million lines of code. You really can’t fix this with a compile, which some people naively think.
All Apple ARM devices since the first iPhone were always running MacOS X. The kernel is the same, although the OS has different modules, for different purposes e.g. 'Cocoa Touch' instead of 'Cocoa'. If they wanted to, they could bring a MacBook Air like device tomorrow. I am pretty sure they are already working on the big applications, since they are forced to make this step sometime in the future, when Intel CPUs do no longer make sense in terms of energy efficiency and speed. Just like they did with the PowerPC.
so the question is what Apple would do here. Could they convince small developers to go with it? Probably. But large developers would really have to,have a very good reason to go through this again. And as it’s nkt likely that Apple could use this for anything other than a Macbook, AMD just maybe, but not likely, a Mini, there might not be enough a market for all of this software.
so we would have to go back to the premise I first brought up a few years ago. That is that experts have found that about 80% of the slowdown when running emulation is due to a small number of chip instructions, somewhere around a dozen, or a bit more, depending on which chip families are being emulated by which other families. As Intel doesn’t have patents on individual instructions, Apple could take those few and incorporate them into their ARM chip. When xu6 software requires them, the chip would switch over to them for these calculations.
if Apple could get an A12X perhaps 40% faster than this A11, then with those extra instructions, that could work out about as well as a mid range i5 low power mobile chip for much less money that Apple pays Intel.
i could see that working.
Apple will make the switch, when they feel that the time has come, and whoever wants to stay relevant will have to do the same, or will lose out the most powerful PC platform. And this is not fanboy talk here: the ARM64 architecture has way more potential than Intel's x64 architecture. Intel would have to create a new, binary incompatible architecture, to catch up to Apple and lacks the software, the OS and the customers.
The problem is that Apple can only do this for the lower end x86 chips. Don’t be fooled into thinking that the A series can be jacked up to a Desktop i7. One reason why Apple has been so successful for years now was because ARM was starting at a pretty low level to begin with. That’s because no one cared to produce a more powerful device. When Apple decided to, there was a lot of low hanging fruit. Now Apple is stretching more to get more fruit. We see the improvement this year -25% increase in performance for the high performance cores. By previous standards, that’s not much. And with their own GPU, just 30%. I’m sure they have their reasons, and maybe next year, specs will improve more.
but to get to the level of Desktop chips, with their 100-140,watt ratings, is a different thing. You can’t just pour power into a chip and watch it zoom. It has to be designed for that. I’m not saying Apple can’t do it, but that would be an entirely different direction for them. I can possibly see Apple modifying their SoC, and using two. That could work.
Ya know... It really doesn't matter how anybody spins this. It is remarkable and it is a game changer. The wall between laptops and mobile devices continues to crumble.
By adding a keyboard, pointer and file system to the iPad Pro Apple has already challenged low and medium powered laptops. All they really need now is: 1) A mouse or touchpad replacing the pencil/pointer and let the pencil serve for drawing and markup. 2) Replace the lightening connector with Thunderbolt/USB-C.
At that point, the MacBook and MacBook Airs would be obsolete and irrelevant.
I think this is more likely what Apple might do, rather than port macOS to their A-series chips. A laptop that is very, very lightweight, very fast, runs a simple and elegant operating system which is already used by 100s of millions of people. Isn't that more likely? This way they can continue to sell Intel computers at a premium for people who require macOS (which isn't a growing segment of the population but rather a niche use case for power users, which Apple can exploit beautifully with machines and an OS for their needs).
Regarding the pointer, all they need is a touchpad that mimics the shape of the screen, then wherever you place a finger, it appears as a "touch" by blurring a finger sized shape on the screen in the same location. No arrow or other pointer needed, the OS is already designed around a "touch" which can be mimicked with a touchpad. The pointer doesn't float, it only appears when you touch the touchpad, just like iOS and the way it receives input. No need to train people on the new OS, it's not new, it's simply the same with additional pointing help - we're already some way there with tvOS and it's input device and paradigms. Imagine a laptop like this, it'd sell way more than laptops with macOS on them.
There's no need to or desire to "port macOS to their A-series chips". First, MacOS was ALREADY ported to the A-Series chips. That's where iOS came from. But, more importantly, all Apple has to do in order to fulfill their promise of making the iPad Pro a laptop killer is add a mouse or touchpad. Everything else is already there: the keyboard, the file system, the pointer and an actually more powerful processor than that of the MacBook. (And, at some point, improve connectivity & expandibility by switching from a lightening port to a thunderbolt.)
You know, it’s the full macOS Desktop they want, with regular macOS apps.
Huh? Who wants it? And why? iOS can already run the most commonly used MacOS apps -- or valid substitutes. OK, so it won't run high end photo editing software -- at least not for a long time. <shrug> Most people don't even know what those apps are -- or care.
But, an iPad that is as efficient at maintaining a calendar, generating a presentation, producing a term paper or maintaining spreadsheet as a MacBook -- or watching YouTube....
No, the MacBook is going to same place as the iPod...
Man, you’re of it. There are lots of people who would want this. It’s been talked about for years. I know a lot of people who would want one. I would buy one.
i’ve been using iPads from the very first one, and I have every one except the 4. I know the iPad very well, and use some fairly heavy software with it. But does that mean I’m going to abandon my Macs? No, that would be crazy. My Macs still do things my iPad can’t. There is software for my Mac that doesn’t exist for my iPad, and may never exist. Hardware too.
I say that for many people, an iPad can take over for their computer, so I don’t disagree with that. But not always. And there are people who simply don’t want a tablet. I have a friend, who, despite having used my iPads every Friday for three years, still doesn’t feel comfortable with it. He’s not the only one. And a lot of people say that if they’re going to get a keyboard, they may as well get a Windows or macOS machine. I understand that.
a lot of us thought that by now, Apple would be selling over 100 million iPads a year. That didn’t happen. Hopefully, with the bifurcation of the lines, sales will continue to increase again. But it should give us some pause that there just might be a limitation to what people are going to want, and that many may not want tablets.
so if Apple is looking at their processor teams, and what can be done, I wouldn’t be surprised if they weren’t looking at this. It would be shirking their duty not to. With Apple looking for more vertical controll, it just makes sense to do this, if they think they can.
Ya know... It really doesn't matter how anybody spins this. It is remarkable and it is a game changer. The wall between laptops and mobile devices continues to crumble.
By adding a keyboard, pointer and file system to the iPad Pro Apple has already challenged low and medium powered laptops. All they really need now is: 1) A mouse or touchpad replacing the pencil/pointer and let the pencil serve for drawing and markup. 2) Replace the lightening connector with Thunderbolt/USB-C.
At that point, the MacBook and MacBook Airs would be obsolete and irrelevant.
I think this is more likely what Apple might do, rather than port macOS to their A-series chips. A laptop that is very, very lightweight, very fast, runs a simple and elegant operating system which is already used by 100s of millions of people. Isn't that more likely? This way they can continue to sell Intel computers at a premium for people who require macOS (which isn't a growing segment of the population but rather a niche use case for power users, which Apple can exploit beautifully with machines and an OS for their needs).
Regarding the pointer, all they need is a touchpad that mimics the shape of the screen, then wherever you place a finger, it appears as a "touch" by blurring a finger sized shape on the screen in the same location. No arrow or other pointer needed, the OS is already designed around a "touch" which can be mimicked with a touchpad. The pointer doesn't float, it only appears when you touch the touchpad, just like iOS and the way it receives input. No need to train people on the new OS, it's not new, it's simply the same with additional pointing help - we're already some way there with tvOS and it's input device and paradigms. Imagine a laptop like this, it'd sell way more than laptops with macOS on them.
There's no need to or desire to "port macOS to their A-series chips". First, MacOS was ALREADY ported to the A-Series chips. That's where iOS came from.
Wow, that totally misses the point I was making. I'm familiar with the "macOS is iOS, they're one and the same" argument (I understand the origin of the code), but that's not what I'm talking about at all. What I'm talking about is this notion that some people think macOS is suddenly going to run on A-series chips in production models sold by Apple and Intel is going to be crying all the way to bankruptcy because Apple doesn't buy chips from Intel any longer.
I think it's unlikely we'll see that scenario happen. What I think more likely is that we'll see what you're alluding to, which is an input-based expansion of iOS such that it could then be run on a non-touchscreen system.
You have said iOS needs two things: touchpad/mouse and port. Port is irrelevant to my argument, meaning fine with and fine without.
But, your other point is very interesting in that once you add touchpad/mouse support to iOS, you've essentially created a non-touch version of iOS, more complete than the existing non-touch iOS we already have in tvOS. Let's follow this a bit...
At that point a non-touch version of iOS could easily be placed into a laptop or desktop (rather than releasing macOS on A-series chips and going through all that rigamarole in the market regarding porting as Apple did with the transition to Intel chips). There are many people (this thread included) who keep predicting Apple's replacing Intel in its laptops and/or desktops since these A-series chips are so damn fast (the whole premise of this article), but I think that's unlikely. I think it would be easier for them to expand iOS (as you suggest with one change) and then drop it into a new laptop line instead of supplanting Intel chip-based systems with macOS running on A-series chips.
Apologies I was so unclear, I merely took your point and ran with it using logic as my guide. I like your thinking about the laptop killer, I agree with it. However, rather than render their own laptops obsolete and irrelevant, Apple could easily offer both the laptop killer in the iPad (with pointing device expansion) as well as an actual laptop (which is a HUGE market) which is thin, fast and cheaper than their current macOS systems, and would offer the market a whole new type of laptop.
The problem is that Apple can only do this for the lower end x86 chips. Don’t be fooled into thinking that the A series can be jacked up to a Desktop i7. One reason why Apple has been so successful for years now was because ARM was starting at a pretty low level to begin with. That’s because no one cared to produce a more powerful device. When Apple decided to, there was a lot of low hanging fruit. Now Apple is stretching more to get more fruit. We see the improvement this year -25% increase in performance for the high performance cores. By previous standards, that’s not much. And with their own GPU, just 30%. I’m sure they have their reasons, and maybe next year, specs will improve more.
but to get to the level of Desktop chips, with their 100-140,watt ratings, is a different thing. You can’t just pour power into a chip and watch it zoom. It has to be designed for that. I’m not saying Apple can’t do it, but that would be an entirely different direction for them. I can possibly see Apple modifying their SoC, and using two. That could work.
I agree for the most part.
But a 25% increase is still very good for a CPU, actually much more than a 'tock' for Intel CPUs in the last years. Intels 40% increase this generation was due to adding 2 more cores (25%), manufacturing (about 7.5%) and design (7.5%) -> worlds leading CPU manufacturer. Intel puts more cores into it's CPUs because they look good in benchmarks, but single core performance is more important for home user devices. It's also much harder to achieve. Especially if your CPU architecture has been exhausted over the many years. The A20 gate was dropped with Haswell... ^^ The CPU needs to be looked at, to make a statement about it. I did not expect this, because designing a GPU (and write drivers for it) is imo even more complex than designing a CPU.
You can bet, that Apple didn't just buy chip fabs and hired very skilled chip designers, to exclusively create chips for iPhones and iPads... I know, that designing a new and powerful ARM CPU for Notebooks or desktops is something totally different, but do not forget, that this also means, you have a lot more freedom for such a chip. There is no need to integrate a SoC (although you could). Apple in the past has put fixed functions into external chips, of which some were later integrated into the SoC. When you want to create a CPU (not a SoC), you will choose only functions, you really need in the CPU, which greatly reduces complexity of the design. You can fully concentrate on the efficiency of the CPU and have less constraints. We can only speculate, how a 'real' CPU would look like and behave performance wise if e.g. created with the current Intel manufacturing process...
But ultimately software sells hardware. And this is the important part. They need to coordinate with the OS and software and each part needs to be finished in order to make such a device. It's not even a debate, IF Apple will make the switch, the only question is, WHEN they will do it. And I would assume to see such a device in the next two years. Then again, we already have the iPad Pro, which is quite a powerful device, which already can use keyboard and mouse. How much more performance would an ARM notebook require? I am convinced, that only the software part is holding Apple back. But in the end it sure is all speculation...
The problem is that Apple can only do this for the lower end x86 chips. Don’t be fooled into thinking that the A series can be jacked up to a Desktop i7. One reason why Apple has been so successful for years now was because ARM was starting at a pretty low level to begin with. That’s because no one cared to produce a more powerful device. When Apple decided to, there was a lot of low hanging fruit. Now Apple is stretching more to get more fruit. We see the improvement this year -25% increase in performance for the high performance cores. By previous standards, that’s not much. And with their own GPU, just 30%. I’m sure they have their reasons, and maybe next year, specs will improve more.
but to get to the level of Desktop chips, with their 100-140,watt ratings, is a different thing. You can’t just pour power into a chip and watch it zoom. It has to be designed for that. I’m not saying Apple can’t do it, but that would be an entirely different direction for them. I can possibly see Apple modifying their SoC, and using two. That could work.
I agree for the most part.
But a 25% increase is still very good for a CPU, actually much more than a 'tock' for Intel CPUs in the last years. Intels 40% increase this generation was due to adding 2 more cores (25%), manufacturing (about 7.5%) and design (7.5%) -> worlds leading CPU manufacturer. Intel puts more cores into it's CPUs because they look good in benchmarks, but single core performance is more important for home user devices. It's also much harder to achieve. Especially if your CPU architecture has been exhausted over the many years. The A20 gate was dropped with Haswell... ^^ The CPU needs to be looked at, to make a statement about it. I did not expect this, because designing a GPU (and write drivers for it) is imo even more complex than designing a CPU.
You can bet, that Apple didn't just buy chip fabs and hired very skilled chip designers, to exclusively create chips for iPhones and iPads... I know, that designing a new and powerful ARM CPU for Notebooks or desktops is something totally different, but do not forget, that this also means, you have a lot more freedom for such a chip. There is no need to integrate a SoC (although you could). Apple in the past has put fixed functions into external chips, of which some were later integrated into the SoC. When you want to create a CPU (not a SoC), you will choose only functions, you really need in the CPU, which greatly reduces complexity of the design. You can fully concentrate on the efficiency of the CPU and have less constraints. We can only speculate, how a 'real' CPU would look like and behave performance wise if e.g. created with the current Intel manufacturing process...
But ultimately software sells hardware. And this is the important part. They need to coordinate with the OS and software and each part needs to be finished in order to make such a device. It's not even a debate, IF Apple will make the switch, the only question is, WHEN they will do it. And I would assume to see such a device in the next two years. Then again, we already have the iPad Pro, which is quite a powerful device, which already can use keyboard and mouse. How much more performance would an ARM notebook require? I am convinced, that only the software part is holding Apple back. But in the end it sure is all speculation...
25% is very good for a CPU, but it’s not very good for Apple. And if we’re talking about catching up, even to lower end chips, and Apple isn’t going to take five more years to do it, then they have to increase faster than that, because Intel will move about 10% a year, on average.
more cores are important for a number of things, but as you begin to move beyond 4, it becomes more difficult to effectively use those cores, even if you’re doing multitasking. There are tasks for which more cores ism always better. Video rendering is a major user of cores. But 6 is a good number, and 8 is fine. Beyond that, other than for video, virtual OSs, certain database functions and a very few other uses, for the Desktop, it’s enough. It’s not just Intel, we’re seeing AMD, with Threadripper, having too many core for almost anyone to exploit. And top Xeons have over two dozen cores, but for that purpose, they’re needed.
we can bet about the chip fabs, because Apple didn’t buy any. Apple is a boutique design shop.
SOCs are great, because they lower cost all around, and give better performance with more things on die. If Apple can do that for a notebook, that would be good. With such small processes these days, a lot can be put on one chip that had to be made separately. It’s always preferable to put as much as possible on the same die. There are a number of reasons for that. If you saw the picture of the bottom of Apple’s die, you would see a lot less ball connections than on separate c;us. That’s because since so much is on die, Apple doesn’t have to go out to the board with a lot more traces. It simplifies the board more because there is less worry about interference, and trace capacitance, etc. it’s cheaper to assemble the board, and to test it.
all around, I would prefer to see more integration, not less.
Ya know... It really doesn't matter how anybody spins this. It is remarkable and it is a game changer. The wall between laptops and mobile devices continues to crumble.
By adding a keyboard, pointer and file system to the iPad Pro Apple has already challenged low and medium powered laptops. All they really need now is: 1) A mouse or touchpad replacing the pencil/pointer and let the pencil serve for drawing and markup. 2) Replace the lightening connector with Thunderbolt/USB-C.
At that point, the MacBook and MacBook Airs would be obsolete and irrelevant.
I think this is more likely what Apple might do, rather than port macOS to their A-series chips. A laptop that is very, very lightweight, very fast, runs a simple and elegant operating system which is already used by 100s of millions of people. Isn't that more likely? This way they can continue to sell Intel computers at a premium for people who require macOS (which isn't a growing segment of the population but rather a niche use case for power users, which Apple can exploit beautifully with machines and an OS for their needs).
Regarding the pointer, all they need is a touchpad that mimics the shape of the screen, then wherever you place a finger, it appears as a "touch" by blurring a finger sized shape on the screen in the same location. No arrow or other pointer needed, the OS is already designed around a "touch" which can be mimicked with a touchpad. The pointer doesn't float, it only appears when you touch the touchpad, just like iOS and the way it receives input. No need to train people on the new OS, it's not new, it's simply the same with additional pointing help - we're already some way there with tvOS and it's input device and paradigms. Imagine a laptop like this, it'd sell way more than laptops with macOS on them.
There's no need to or desire to "port macOS to their A-series chips". First, MacOS was ALREADY ported to the A-Series chips. That's where iOS came from. But, more importantly, all Apple has to do in order to fulfill their promise of making the iPad Pro a laptop killer is add a mouse or touchpad. Everything else is already there: the keyboard, the file system, the pointer and an actually more powerful processor than that of the MacBook. (And, at some point, improve connectivity & expandibility by switching from a lightening port to a thunderbolt.)
You know, it’s the full macOS Desktop they want, with regular macOS apps.
Huh? Who wants it? And why? iOS can already run the most commonly used MacOS apps -- or valid substitutes. OK, so it won't run high end photo editing software -- at least not for a long time. <shrug> Most people don't even know what those apps are -- or care.
But, an iPad that is as efficient at maintaining a calendar, generating a presentation, producing a term paper or maintaining spreadsheet as a MacBook -- or watching YouTube....
No, the MacBook is going to same place as the iPod...
Man, you’re of it. There are lots of people who would want this. It’s been talked about for years. I know a lot of people who would want one. I would buy one.
i’ve been using iPads from the very first one, and I have every one except the 4. I know the iPad very well, and use some fairly heavy software with it. But does that mean I’m going to abandon my Macs? No, that would be crazy. My Macs still do things my iPad can’t. There is software for my Mac that doesn’t exist for my iPad, and may never exist. Hardware too.
I say that for many people, an iPad can take over for their computer, so I don’t disagree with that. But not always. And there are people who simply don’t want a tablet. I have a friend, who, despite having used my iPads every Friday for three years, still doesn’t feel comfortable with it. He’s not the only one. And a lot of people say that if they’re going to get a keyboard, they may as well get a Windows or macOS machine. I understand that.
a lot of us thought that by now, Apple would be selling over 100 million iPads a year. That didn’t happen. Hopefully, with the bifurcation of the lines, sales will continue to increase again. But it should give us some pause that there just might be a limitation to what people are going to want, and that many may not want tablets.
so if Apple is looking at their processor teams, and what can be done, I wouldn’t be surprised if they weren’t looking at this. It would be shirking their duty not to. With Apple looking for more vertical controll, it just makes sense to do this, if they think they can.
Of course there will always be a few a hold-outs & special situations. That's why Apple still sells the iPod. And, we will continue to see MacBooks just as we see iPods.
But, Apple has said that they intend for the iPad Pro to kill the laptop. And, I believe them - at least for the low end MacBook stuff. I don't think it will kill the high end stuff like the MacBook Pros -- at least not for a long time.
But, for the average user who just wants something that works as a switch hitter functioning either as a tablet (for games) or in laptop mode (for spreadsheets and heavy typing), the IPad Pro is already most of the way there. Currently, all they have to do is set it up on its keyboard and start typing and, if they don't want to use the touch screen (which Apple has predicted), then they can use the pencil -- at least for pointing and selecting. But, the last major piece in becoming a true switch hitter and a laptop killer is the touchpad. For Apple, that should be no big thing.
But currently, people have to continue buying two devices... Or decide on one or the other and have to deal with its limitations.
There’s a lot more to making an ARM Mac than just slipping a new SoC in. While some keep dismissing it, the fact is that ARM doesn’t run x86 software. Yes, Apple likely has macOS running on ARM. It makes sense for them to keep playing with it. And if they wanted to, they could bring their mainstream apps over. But big software packages are something else. FCP, Logic Pro and software from Adobe, Microsoft and others are a good 100 million lines of code. You really can’t fix this with a compile, which some people naively think.
All Apple ARM devices since the first iPhone were always running MacOS X. The kernel is the same, although the OS has different modules, for different purposes e.g. 'Cocoa Touch' instead of 'Cocoa'. If they wanted to, they could bring a MacBook Air like device tomorrow. I am pretty sure they are already working on the big applications, since they are forced to make this step sometime in the future, when Intel CPUs do no longer make sense in terms of energy efficiency and speed. Just like they did with the PowerPC.
so the question is what Apple would do here. Could they convince small developers to go with it? Probably. But large developers would really have to,have a very good reason to go through this again. And as it’s nkt likely that Apple could use this for anything other than a Macbook, AMD just maybe, but not likely, a Mini, there might not be enough a market for all of this software.
so we would have to go back to the premise I first brought up a few years ago. That is that experts have found that about 80% of the slowdown when running emulation is due to a small number of chip instructions, somewhere around a dozen, or a bit more, depending on which chip families are being emulated by which other families. As Intel doesn’t have patents on individual instructions, Apple could take those few and incorporate them into their ARM chip. When xu6 software requires them, the chip would switch over to them for these calculations.
if Apple could get an A12X perhaps 40% faster than this A11, then with those extra instructions, that could work out about as well as a mid range i5 low power mobile chip for much less money that Apple pays Intel.
i could see that working.
Apple will make the switch, when they feel that the time has come, and whoever wants to stay relevant will have to do the same, or will lose out the most powerful PC platform. And this is not fanboy talk here: the ARM64 architecture has way more potential than Intel's x64 architecture. Intel would have to create a new, binary incompatible architecture, to catch up to Apple and lacks the software, the OS and the customers.
The problem is that Apple can only do this for the lower end x86 chips. Don’t be fooled into thinking that the A series can be jacked up to a Desktop i7. One reason why Apple has been so successful for years now was because ARM was starting at a pretty low level to begin with. That’s because no one cared to produce a more powerful device. When Apple decided to, there was a lot of low hanging fruit. Now Apple is stretching more to get more fruit. We see the improvement this year -25% increase in performance for the high performance cores. By previous standards, that’s not much. And with their own GPU, just 30%. I’m sure they have their reasons, and maybe next year, specs will improve more.
but to get to the level of Desktop chips, with their 100-140,watt ratings, is a different thing. You can’t just pour power into a chip and watch it zoom. It has to be designed for that. I’m not saying Apple can’t do it, but that would be an entirely different direction for them. I can possibly see Apple modifying their SoC, and using two. That could work.
The lower improvement this year is likely linked to the restriction in the power enveloppe linked to the addition of the other cores. More cores means heat dissipation is harder and more heat generated (even if they're much smaller). That's why CPU with a lot of cores often have a lower max clock. Not to mention the SOC is getting really crowded with a hell of a lot of stuff that may be working while the CPU also is working.
So, I'd argue that this is the main reason we didn't get say 40% this year in the IPC.
But, considering that the SOC is doing less and less tasks that are directly user driven (like UI) and more and more that are either going in the background , or have specialized processing (AI, all those communications going on with external devices and internal sensors). The high performance cores are so powerful these days that waking them up for background tasks that run near constantly would be a battery killer.
I think its obvious Apple thinks they've got the main thread covered already and they need to offload those functions somewhere else. Contrary to Android were the other cores seem to woefully underused anywhere but in benchmarks, Apple by controlling the OS and the HW can use those side resources fully.
The lower improvement this year is likely linked to the restriction in the power enveloppe linked to the addition of the other cores. More cores means heat dissipation is harder and more heat generated (even if they're much smaller). That's why CPU with a lot of cores often have a lower max clock. Not to mention the SOC is getting really crowded with a hell of a lot of stuff that may be working while the CPU also is working.
Another thing is, that the integration of RAM on a SoC is quite different compared to a normal CPU. SoCs have RAM piggybacked on top. And stacking more RAM means higher power usage and higher temps. And it requires a specific power/speed management for the RAM, not sure, how Apple is handling it e.g. when only low speed cores are running. This is not trivial.
I think so yes for certain Macs. I could easily see something like the Mac mini, possibly the 12" MacBook using an Apple made CPU/GPU at some point fairly soon. We have to think Apple has been making macOS versions compatible with their A Series CPU/GPU's today and in the future.
I think bringing the Air product line back from near death makes marketing sense for an ARM-based Mac. They've already use Air for the iPads and MacBook Air and Mac Air or Mac mini Air sound reasonable to me.
Doubtful. All the MacOS apps would have to be compiled for both x86 and ARM.
That vastly reduces the usefulness since many apps won't be updated to ARM so it buys you only a marginal improvement over getting an iPad Pro + keyboard cover since many of the major apps already have an iOS version...which Apple wants to keep them pushing toward.
That MacOS runs on an iPad Pro somewhere on the Apple campus is without doubt.
But there is very little incentive for Apple to reduce pricing on MacBooks or make app strategy more complex for developers and lose focus on increasing development of high end iPad Pro apps.
Intel should ask Apple tips on how to benefit in speed for their own chips I am wondering how is it possible that benchmarks are already there, considering the phone is officially not out in the open yet. Who is posting these benchmarks, Apple employees?
Intel has 4.5W processors which is what the Apple processors have parity with. This is impressive by both parties.
The difference is price.
Intel is lucky from the perspective that nobody can buy Apple processors and even if they could I doubt Apple would sell a tray for less than what Intel charges. Why would they?
Right now Intel is doing what Apple wants them to do for Macs: concentrate on performance per watt. Until this changes or Apple decides to make 45W-90W TDP Core i7 killers there's little reason to switch from Intel to Arm for MacOS.
I think Apple would prefer to continue to concentrate its brain resources on massively beating the crap out of the rest of the mobile market with industry leading low power processors than lose focus to slightly improve margins in the smaller laptop/desktop market it's already winning by building out 90W high end processors to be able to replace Intel across the board.
Anyone want to bet they sell more iPhone X than MacBooks in FY2018?
Intel has given up on the mobile market and is happy to keep selling laptop parts at high ASP and keep ARM mostly out of the server market with very good performance per watt offerings.
I suspect if Intel really really wanted it could win Apple's business as a foundry.
Ya know... It really doesn't matter how anybody spins this. It is remarkable and it is a game changer. The wall between laptops and mobile devices continues to crumble.
By adding a keyboard, pointer and file system to the iPad Pro Apple has already challenged low and medium powered laptops. All they really need now is: 1) A mouse or touchpad replacing the pencil/pointer and let the pencil serve for drawing and markup. 2) Replace the lightening connector with Thunderbolt/USB-C.
At that point, the MacBook and MacBook Airs would be obsolete and irrelevant.
I think this is more likely what Apple might do, rather than port macOS to their A-series chips. A laptop that is very, very lightweight, very fast, runs a simple and elegant operating system which is already used by 100s of millions of people. Isn't that more likely? This way they can continue to sell Intel computers at a premium for people who require macOS (which isn't a growing segment of the population but rather a niche use case for power users, which Apple can exploit beautifully with machines and an OS for their needs).
Regarding the pointer, all they need is a touchpad that mimics the shape of the screen, then wherever you place a finger, it appears as a "touch" by blurring a finger sized shape on the screen in the same location. No arrow or other pointer needed, the OS is already designed around a "touch" which can be mimicked with a touchpad. The pointer doesn't float, it only appears when you touch the touchpad, just like iOS and the way it receives input. No need to train people on the new OS, it's not new, it's simply the same with additional pointing help - we're already some way there with tvOS and it's input device and paradigms. Imagine a laptop like this, it'd sell way more than laptops with macOS on them.
There's no need to or desire to "port macOS to their A-series chips". First, MacOS was ALREADY ported to the A-Series chips. That's where iOS came from. But, more importantly, all Apple has to do in order to fulfill their promise of making the iPad Pro a laptop killer is add a mouse or touchpad. Everything else is already there: the keyboard, the file system, the pointer and an actually more powerful processor than that of the MacBook. (And, at some point, improve connectivity & expandibility by switching from a lightening port to a thunderbolt.)
Yah, they've clearly signaled that their strategy is improving their "car" line for more professional use rather than drop price or performance on their "truck" line.
Ya know... It really doesn't matter how anybody spins this. It is remarkable and it is a game changer. The wall between laptops and mobile devices continues to crumble.
By adding a keyboard, pointer and file system to the iPad Pro Apple has already challenged low and medium powered laptops. All they really need now is: 1) A mouse or touchpad replacing the pencil/pointer and let the pencil serve for drawing and markup. 2) Replace the lightening connector with Thunderbolt/USB-C.
At that point, the MacBook and MacBook Airs would be obsolete and irrelevant.
I think this is more likely what Apple might do, rather than port macOS to their A-series chips. A laptop that is very, very lightweight, very fast, runs a simple and elegant operating system which is already used by 100s of millions of people. Isn't that more likely? This way they can continue to sell Intel computers at a premium for people who require macOS (which isn't a growing segment of the population but rather a niche use case for power users, which Apple can exploit beautifully with machines and an OS for their needs).
Regarding the pointer, all they need is a touchpad that mimics the shape of the screen, then wherever you place a finger, it appears as a "touch" by blurring a finger sized shape on the screen in the same location. No arrow or other pointer needed, the OS is already designed around a "touch" which can be mimicked with a touchpad. The pointer doesn't float, it only appears when you touch the touchpad, just like iOS and the way it receives input. No need to train people on the new OS, it's not new, it's simply the same with additional pointing help - we're already some way there with tvOS and it's input device and paradigms. Imagine a laptop like this, it'd sell way more than laptops with macOS on them.
There's no need to or desire to "port macOS to their A-series chips". First, MacOS was ALREADY ported to the A-Series chips. That's where iOS came from. But, more importantly, all Apple has to do in order to fulfill their promise of making the iPad Pro a laptop killer is add a mouse or touchpad. Everything else is already there: the keyboard, the file system, the pointer and an actually more powerful processor than that of the MacBook. (And, at some point, improve connectivity & expandibility by switching from a lightening port to a thunderbolt.)
You know, it’s the full macOS Desktop they want, with regular macOS apps.
Huh? Who wants it? And why? iOS can already run the most commonly used MacOS apps -- or valid substitutes. OK, so it won't run high end photo editing software -- at least not for a long time. <shrug> Most people don't even know what those apps are -- or care.
But, an iPad that is as efficient at maintaining a calendar, generating a presentation, producing a term paper or maintaining spreadsheet as a MacBook -- or watching YouTube....
No, the MacBook is going to same place as the iPod...
Man, you’re of it. There are lots of people who would want this. It’s been talked about for years. I know a lot of people who would want one. I would buy one.
As long as they are wishing for unicorn ponies from Uncle Tim they can also wish for the xMac.
Ya know... It really doesn't matter how anybody spins this. It is remarkable and it is a game changer. The wall between laptops and mobile devices continues to crumble.
By adding a keyboard, pointer and file system to the iPad Pro Apple has already challenged low and medium powered laptops. All they really need now is: 1) A mouse or touchpad replacing the pencil/pointer and let the pencil serve for drawing and markup. 2) Replace the lightening connector with Thunderbolt/USB-C.
At that point, the MacBook and MacBook Airs would be obsolete and irrelevant.
I think this is more likely what Apple might do, rather than port macOS to their A-series chips. A laptop that is very, very lightweight, very fast, runs a simple and elegant operating system which is already used by 100s of millions of people. Isn't that more likely? This way they can continue to sell Intel computers at a premium for people who require macOS (which isn't a growing segment of the population but rather a niche use case for power users, which Apple can exploit beautifully with machines and an OS for their needs).
Regarding the pointer, all they need is a touchpad that mimics the shape of the screen, then wherever you place a finger, it appears as a "touch" by blurring a finger sized shape on the screen in the same location. No arrow or other pointer needed, the OS is already designed around a "touch" which can be mimicked with a touchpad. The pointer doesn't float, it only appears when you touch the touchpad, just like iOS and the way it receives input. No need to train people on the new OS, it's not new, it's simply the same with additional pointing help - we're already some way there with tvOS and it's input device and paradigms. Imagine a laptop like this, it'd sell way more than laptops with macOS on them.
There's no need to or desire to "port macOS to their A-series chips". First, MacOS was ALREADY ported to the A-Series chips. That's where iOS came from. But, more importantly, all Apple has to do in order to fulfill their promise of making the iPad Pro a laptop killer is add a mouse or touchpad. Everything else is already there: the keyboard, the file system, the pointer and an actually more powerful processor than that of the MacBook. (And, at some point, improve connectivity & expandibility by switching from a lightening port to a thunderbolt.)
You know, it’s the full macOS Desktop they want, with regular macOS apps.
Huh? Who wants it? And why? iOS can already run the most commonly used MacOS apps -- or valid substitutes. OK, so it won't run high end photo editing software -- at least not for a long time. <shrug> Most people don't even know what those apps are -- or care.
But, an iPad that is as efficient at maintaining a calendar, generating a presentation, producing a term paper or maintaining spreadsheet as a MacBook -- or watching YouTube....
No, the MacBook is going to same place as the iPod...
Man, you’re of it. There are lots of people who would want this. It’s been talked about for years. I know a lot of people who would want one. I would buy one.
i’ve been using iPads from the very first one, and I have every one except the 4. I know the iPad very well, and use some fairly heavy software with it. But does that mean I’m going to abandon my Macs? No, that would be crazy. My Macs still do things my iPad can’t. There is software for my Mac that doesn’t exist for my iPad, and may never exist. Hardware too.
I say that for many people, an iPad can take over for their computer, so I don’t disagree with that. But not always. And there are people who simply don’t want a tablet. I have a friend, who, despite having used my iPads every Friday for three years, still doesn’t feel comfortable with it. He’s not the only one. And a lot of people say that if they’re going to get a keyboard, they may as well get a Windows or macOS machine. I understand that.
a lot of us thought that by now, Apple would be selling over 100 million iPads a year. That didn’t happen. Hopefully, with the bifurcation of the lines, sales will continue to increase again. But it should give us some pause that there just might be a limitation to what people are going to want, and that many may not want tablets.
so if Apple is looking at their processor teams, and what can be done, I wouldn’t be surprised if they weren’t looking at this. It would be shirking their duty not to. With Apple looking for more vertical controll, it just makes sense to do this, if they think they can.
Of course there will always be a few a hold-outs & special situations. That's why Apple still sells the iPod. And, we will continue to see MacBooks just as we see iPods.
But, Apple has said that they intend for the iPad Pro to kill the laptop. And, I believe them - at least for the low end MacBook stuff. I don't think it will kill the high end stuff like the MacBook Pros -- at least not for a long time.
But, for the average user who just wants something that works as a switch hitter functioning either as a tablet (for games) or in laptop mode (for spreadsheets and heavy typing), the IPad Pro is already most of the way there. Currently, all they have to do is set it up on its keyboard and start typing and, if they don't want to use the touch screen (which Apple has predicted), then they can use the pencil -- at least for pointing and selecting. But, the last major piece in becoming a true switch hitter and a laptop killer is the touchpad. For Apple, that should be no big thing.
Or just dock it and use as a touch tablet with keyboard and large 27" monitor.
You really just need app support to treat the iPad itself as an input device while the main UI is on the external display. The iPad Pro probably can drive a 4K display with decent performance for productivity apps. Gaming maybe not...
Then again, using an ATV to handle the graphics load, assuming you can eliminate high lag, might work very well.
Comments
Rather than seeing Apple trying to make an A-Series chip into Intel chip, I see them just nipping away at the low end with their laptop killer -- the iPad Pro... The first to go will be the MacBook -- but it won't be killed off, it will just float away into a cloud of irrelevancy...
I don't think that's a guess. Apple has already told us their direction:
Apple will make the switch, when they feel that the time has come, and whoever wants to stay relevant will have to do the same, or will lose out the most powerful PC platform. And this is not fanboy talk here: the ARM64 architecture has way more potential than Intel's x64 architecture. Intel would have to create a new, binary incompatible architecture, to catch up to Apple and lacks the software, the OS and the customers.
to have that Macbook with a more powerful 5 watt chip would be something a lot of people would want. If Apple could get it running x86 software without modification, that would be perfect. And estimates are that Apple’s A-X Series chips cost about $40. That’s a lot less than Intel’s M3 Series with support chips. So Apple would save money too. Possibly the Macbook could drop in cost buy $100, which would be good too, as it’s a bit too much for a lot of people, as it doesn’t fill the niche the AIR does.
Who wants it? And why? iOS can already run the most commonly used MacOS apps -- or valid substitutes.
OK, so it won't run high end photo editing software -- at least not for a long time. <shrug> Most people don't even know what those apps are -- or care.
But, an iPad that is as efficient at maintaining a calendar, generating a presentation, producing a term paper or maintaining spreadsheet as a MacBook -- or watching YouTube....
No, the MacBook is going to same place as the iPod...
but to get to the level of Desktop chips, with their 100-140,watt ratings, is a different thing. You can’t just pour power into a chip and watch it zoom. It has to be designed for that. I’m not saying Apple can’t do it, but that would be an entirely different direction for them. I can possibly see Apple modifying their SoC, and using two. That could work.
Man, you’re of it. There are lots of people who would want this. It’s been talked about for years. I know a lot of people who would want one. I would buy one.
i’ve been using iPads from the very first one, and I have every one except the 4. I know the iPad very well, and use some fairly heavy software with it. But does that mean I’m going to abandon my Macs? No, that would be crazy. My Macs still do things my iPad can’t. There is software for my Mac that doesn’t exist for my iPad, and may never exist. Hardware too.
I say that for many people, an iPad can take over for their computer, so I don’t disagree with that. But not always. And there are people who simply don’t want a tablet. I have a friend, who, despite having used my iPads every Friday for three years, still doesn’t feel comfortable with it. He’s not the only one. And a lot of people say that if they’re going to get a keyboard, they may as well get a Windows or macOS machine. I understand that.
a lot of us thought that by now, Apple would be selling over 100 million iPads a year. That didn’t happen. Hopefully, with the bifurcation of the lines, sales will continue to increase again. But it should give us some pause that there just might be a limitation to what people are going to want, and that many may not want tablets.
so if Apple is looking at their processor teams, and what can be done, I wouldn’t be surprised if they weren’t looking at this. It would be shirking their duty not to. With Apple looking for more vertical controll, it just makes sense to do this, if they think they can.
I think it's unlikely we'll see that scenario happen. What I think more likely is that we'll see what you're alluding to, which is an input-based expansion of iOS such that it could then be run on a non-touchscreen system.
You have said iOS needs two things: touchpad/mouse and port. Port is irrelevant to my argument, meaning fine with and fine without.
But, your other point is very interesting in that once you add touchpad/mouse support to iOS, you've essentially created a non-touch version of iOS, more complete than the existing non-touch iOS we already have in tvOS. Let's follow this a bit...
At that point a non-touch version of iOS could easily be placed into a laptop or desktop (rather than releasing macOS on A-series chips and going through all that rigamarole in the market regarding porting as Apple did with the transition to Intel chips). There are many people (this thread included) who keep predicting Apple's replacing Intel in its laptops and/or desktops since these A-series chips are so damn fast (the whole premise of this article), but I think that's unlikely. I think it would be easier for them to expand iOS (as you suggest with one change) and then drop it into a new laptop line instead of supplanting Intel chip-based systems with macOS running on A-series chips.
Apologies I was so unclear, I merely took your point and ran with it using logic as my guide. I like your thinking about the laptop killer, I agree with it. However, rather than render their own laptops obsolete and irrelevant, Apple could easily offer both the laptop killer in the iPad (with pointing device expansion) as well as an actual laptop (which is a HUGE market) which is thin, fast and cheaper than their current macOS systems, and would offer the market a whole new type of laptop.
But a 25% increase is still very good for a CPU, actually much more than a 'tock' for Intel CPUs in the last years. Intels 40% increase this generation was due to adding 2 more cores (25%), manufacturing (about 7.5%) and design (7.5%) -> worlds leading CPU manufacturer.
Intel puts more cores into it's CPUs because they look good in benchmarks, but single core performance is more important for home user devices. It's also much harder to achieve. Especially if your CPU architecture has been exhausted over the many years. The A20 gate was dropped with Haswell... ^^
The CPU needs to be looked at, to make a statement about it. I did not expect this, because designing a GPU (and write drivers for it) is imo even more complex than designing a CPU.
You can bet, that Apple didn't just buy chip fabs and hired very skilled chip designers, to exclusively create chips for iPhones and iPads...
I know, that designing a new and powerful ARM CPU for Notebooks or desktops is something totally different, but do not forget, that this also means, you have a lot more freedom for such a chip. There is no need to integrate a SoC (although you could). Apple in the past has put fixed functions into external chips, of which some were later integrated into the SoC. When you want to create a CPU (not a SoC), you will choose only functions, you really need in the CPU, which greatly reduces complexity of the design. You can fully concentrate on the efficiency of the CPU and have less constraints.
We can only speculate, how a 'real' CPU would look like and behave performance wise if e.g. created with the current Intel manufacturing process...
But ultimately software sells hardware. And this is the important part. They need to coordinate with the OS and software and each part needs to be finished in order to make such a device.
It's not even a debate, IF Apple will make the switch, the only question is, WHEN they will do it. And I would assume to see such a device in the next two years. Then again, we already have the iPad Pro, which is quite a powerful device, which already can use keyboard and mouse. How much more performance would an ARM notebook require? I am convinced, that only the software part is holding Apple back. But in the end it sure is all speculation...
more cores are important for a number of things, but as you begin to move beyond 4, it becomes more difficult to effectively use those cores, even if you’re doing multitasking. There are tasks for which more cores ism always better. Video rendering is a major user of cores. But 6 is a good number, and 8 is fine. Beyond that, other than for video, virtual OSs, certain database functions and a very few other uses, for the Desktop, it’s enough. It’s not just Intel, we’re seeing AMD, with Threadripper, having too many core for almost anyone to exploit. And top Xeons have over two dozen cores, but for that purpose, they’re needed.
we can bet about the chip fabs, because Apple didn’t buy any. Apple is a boutique design shop.
SOCs are great, because they lower cost all around, and give better performance with more things on die. If Apple can do that for a notebook, that would be good. With such small processes these days, a lot can be put on one chip that had to be made separately. It’s always preferable to put as much as possible on the same die. There are a number of reasons for that. If you saw the picture of the bottom of Apple’s die, you would see a lot less ball connections than on separate c;us. That’s because since so much is on die, Apple doesn’t have to go out to the board with a lot more traces. It simplifies the board more because there is less worry about interference, and trace capacitance, etc. it’s cheaper to assemble the board, and to test it.
all around, I would prefer to see more integration, not less.
but, as we can both agree, software it is.
But, Apple has said that they intend for the iPad Pro to kill the laptop. And, I believe them - at least for the low end MacBook stuff. I don't think it will kill the high end stuff like the MacBook Pros -- at least not for a long time.
But, for the average user who just wants something that works as a switch hitter functioning either as a tablet (for games) or in laptop mode (for spreadsheets and heavy typing), the IPad Pro is already most of the way there. Currently, all they have to do is set it up on its keyboard and start typing and, if they don't want to use the touch screen (which Apple has predicted), then they can use the pencil -- at least for pointing and selecting. But, the last major piece in becoming a true switch hitter and a laptop killer is the touchpad. For Apple, that should be no big thing.
But currently, people have to continue buying two devices... Or decide on one or the other and have to deal with its limitations.
That's why CPU with a lot of cores often have a lower max clock.
Not to mention the SOC is getting really crowded with a hell of a lot of stuff that may be working while the CPU also is working.
So, I'd argue that this is the main reason we didn't get say 40% this year in the IPC.
But, considering that the SOC is doing less and less tasks that are directly user driven (like UI) and more and more that are either going in the background , or have specialized processing (AI, all those communications going on with external devices and internal sensors).
The high performance cores are so powerful these days that waking them up for background tasks that run near constantly would be a battery killer.
I think its obvious Apple thinks they've got the main thread covered already and they need to offload those functions somewhere else.
Contrary to Android were the other cores seem to woefully underused anywhere but in benchmarks, Apple by controlling the OS and the HW can use those side resources fully.
That vastly reduces the usefulness since many apps won't be updated to ARM so it buys you only a marginal improvement over getting an iPad Pro + keyboard cover since many of the major apps already have an iOS version...which Apple wants to keep them pushing toward.
That MacOS runs on an iPad Pro somewhere on the Apple campus is without doubt.
But there is very little incentive for Apple to reduce pricing on MacBooks or make app strategy more complex for developers and lose focus on increasing development of high end iPad Pro apps.
Intel has 4.5W processors which is what the Apple processors have parity with. This is impressive by both parties.
The difference is price.
Intel is lucky from the perspective that nobody can buy Apple processors and even if they could I doubt Apple would sell a tray for less than what Intel charges. Why would they?
Right now Intel is doing what Apple wants them to do for Macs: concentrate on performance per watt. Until this changes or Apple decides to make 45W-90W TDP Core i7 killers there's little reason to switch from Intel to Arm for MacOS.
I think Apple would prefer to continue to concentrate its brain resources on massively beating the crap out of the rest of the mobile market with industry leading low power processors than lose focus to slightly improve margins in the smaller laptop/desktop market it's already winning by building out 90W high end processors to be able to replace Intel across the board.
Anyone want to bet they sell more iPhone X than MacBooks in FY2018?
Intel has given up on the mobile market and is happy to keep selling laptop parts at high ASP and keep ARM mostly out of the server market with very good performance per watt offerings.
I suspect if Intel really really wanted it could win Apple's business as a foundry.
Or just dock it and use as a touch tablet with keyboard and large 27" monitor.
You really just need app support to treat the iPad itself as an input device while the main UI is on the external display. The iPad Pro probably can drive a 4K display with decent performance for productivity apps. Gaming maybe not...
Then again, using an ATV to handle the graphics load, assuming you can eliminate high lag, might work very well.