And, as I have said before, I expect the new ARM processor will become the standard across the line, with some machines losing the x86 processor all together, and others (the "Pro" machines) keeping it for certain processes - like the add-in GPUs are now. (Low end Macs rely on the Intel graphics, higher end have the add-ins.)
x86 is what's holding the Mac back. It's the reason too many developers don't develop native apps for the Mac platform.
This REALLY confuses me. I don't know how long you've been a Mac user, but the Intel transition fifteen years ago practically EXPLODED the Mac software market, as all sorts of stuff was suddenly built cross-platform by developers who not in a lifetime would have ever considered developing for Mac, before.
Those guys could buy Macs for OS X *and* Windows development, and got (one of) the best mobile machines on the market, to boot.
This ARM transition is different in that regard — everybody developing for iOS already has a Mac, because you need one for XCode.
Where it may be similar is that, like the influx of Windows developers when Mac went intel, moving to ARM may get a whole slew of really shitty-to-mediocre software titles ported to macOS from people who very obviously haven't the slightest clue how a Mac ought to work.
For me is question how Apple will handle transition period. If they announce product they need to give developers something into hands. I think emulator is not enough but I can be wrong.
If they want to sell it, they need at least some basic support from third party developers not just build in apps.So they can not ship it say in two months.
So it is unlikely they will release MB that will ship soon and it is not even predicted. So have to developers wait for real shipping version?
How can Apple work this out? Of course, we will know in a week if this going to happen now.
Although apps released through the Mac App Store would likely be unfazed, things would be a bit trickier for independently distributed apps. For example, developers would need to build both ARM and x86 versions of their apps, or take other alternative steps like using emulation for app functionality. Fudge also thinks that Apple could completely abandon Boot Camp as a feature until Windows becomes friendlier to ARM architecture.
Bunch of nonsense! Multi-architecture binaries, aka fat-binaries never went away: an array with just one element is still an array. So regular app developers need only recompile and push a fat binary, and standard release testing aside, are done with a simple recompile.
Not sure about that. The 11 inch MBA was a great little device and quite popular and completely outclassed the wildly popular netbooks of the time, but no doubt was surpassed by the iconic 13 inch MBA. I think what caused the 12 inch rMB to be a market failure was a bad combination of only one port and a high price so it was outsold by the ageing MBA. Maybe an internal ARM chip would at least help the price problem.
I still love my 11 inch MacBook Air. I think it's the best Air because of its size. It can easily fit anywhere I want and serves the purpose that even 13 inch MBA can't in terms of its size.
With absolute certainty I'd guarantee every developer with iPad apps will be looking to add support for an ARM Mac.
I can't imagine that Apple would create a system that wouldn't make the transition from iPadOS to an ArmOS particularly difficult.
But, particularly difficult for Apple is how to fit an ARM Mac within its constellation of products. It has to have the power and feature set of an Intel Mac, without unduly cannibalizing its iPad line. That's the issue I will be focusing on if this comes to pass.
Will the Arm MAC compete with Chrome? This seems to be a market Apple is missing.
The first of your concerns are already being addressed with Catalyst. Eventually you'll just compile for the ARM Mac target as well.
Why would an ARM Mac cannibalize iPads any more than Intel Macs do now? That makes zero sense — the two types of devices will still occupy the same spaces they exist in now, which are generally two fairly different use cases with some overlap. If anything, the iPad Pros are cannibalizing Mac portable sales, already. I just don't see how the different processor would change this dynamic at all.
Comments
Those guys could buy Macs for OS X *and* Windows development, and got (one of) the best mobile machines on the market, to boot.
Where it may be similar is that, like the influx of Windows developers when Mac went intel, moving to ARM may get a whole slew of really shitty-to-mediocre software titles ported to macOS from people who very obviously haven't the slightest clue how a Mac ought to work.
I still love my 11 inch MacBook Air. I think it's the best Air because of its size. It can easily fit anywhere I want and serves the purpose that even 13 inch MBA can't in terms of its size.
Why would an ARM Mac cannibalize iPads any more than Intel Macs do now? That makes zero sense — the two types of devices will still occupy the same spaces they exist in now, which are generally two fairly different use cases with some overlap. If anything, the iPad Pros are cannibalizing Mac portable sales, already. I just don't see how the different processor would change this dynamic at all.