The Mac Pro is PCIe 3.0 - which simply isn't fast enough. Even budget computers from AMD are now running PCIe 4. The Mac Pro 2019 was built using tech that was obsolete on launch. You can get a B550 motherboard with a PCIe 4.0 SSD for 50-100% better performance on storage.
PCIe-4 support depends on Intel, not on Apple. Show us any Xeon that supports PCIe-4 yet. Your point is irrelevant.
Apple could have gone PCIe 4.0 with AMD (which they use exclusively for GPUs) but decided to deliver obsolete technology. Isn't that relevant?
OK, performance and architecture differences put aside, how many Ryzens AMD could deliver matching Apple's specifications? This is a matter of quality and production scale. Even Intel can barely fulfill Apple's demands, if you melt a motherboard every couple of years the speed of your PCIe 4 won't help. Mac Pro is not a DIY home tinkerer's hobby.
Ryzen and EPYC (check the EPYC 7702P) are manufactured side-by-side Apple Silicon by TSMC. Each Mac Pro does come with a GPU made by AMD made on the same 7nm by TSMC. Quality? Scale to production? Not a problem to either Apple or AMD. Apple spent 5 years on doing nothing for the Mac Pro and then in late 2019 they went with a power heavy 14nm CPU and PCIe 3.0. It was obsolete on arrival.
I'm just going to pretend that I didn't watch the first minute or two of the keynote and ignore any politics.
How horrible that someone considers human rights of others. This wouldn't be political to you if you started believing that people of color deserve equal rights.
It's political crap and I reject it.
Funny how only racists think equal rights for people of color is "political." Everyone else just things it's ethical.
I agree. Racism, and bigotry in general, is so deeply integrated in so many places, it has to be attacked everywhere. It’s not just the right thing to do, diversity of people brings diversity of ideas which leads to strength. Everyone wins.
I've always felt that racism was an emotional response, not a logical response and so it's always boggled my mind that there could be people in the computer industry, especially engineers, developers and programmers or those very Into the tech, like people who post here who may or may not be in the industry, could be racist (or sexist or any "ist") because they need to be so logical. But I've seen a lot of implicit racism here over the years.
People always think that any issue they don't want to deal with is a political issue, but it's only a political issue when legislation or politicians are involved. Basic human rights should not be considered political. The solutions might be somewhat political, but the issue isn't. It's like saying that respect or being polite is political.
They could have touch-based Macs on Intel if they wanted. Whether they add touch or not is not dependent on the processor.
They could have, but it would have been touch like on Windows. On Apple Silicon they can let the iPad apps run at native speed. That wouldn't be possible on Intel.
Apparently you haven't heard of Catalyst which already allows them to port iPad apps to Mac. Regardless of apps, they could've implemented touch at any point already. It DOES NOT require a different processor, that's absurd.
It might help on your keyboard rage to read it in full. Catalyst does allow developers to port apps. With macOS 11 users will be able to just run any app. Huge difference. On Apple Silicon the performance will be native.
Nope. They could have any time, but there’s still no reason to. Moving your hands off the keyboard to reach out to a screen hinders productivity.
The ability to run iOS apps natively - did you see the part of the demo where they used an app using the touchpad... they will do touch on the Mac. Or look at the UI - interface elements have sliders and things have been given more space even in then menus - touch friendly.
macOS evolves. I'm sure someone coming from System 6 or 7 would look at Catalina and say "This isn't a Mac any more".
The problem is that it is too much Mac - no matter if you came from System 4 or 6.0.5. You have a menu designed for 9" screens - now you have to chase across much larger screens to the top and back to the content. You have a way of structuring files designed for local 400k disks - and you still need to manually structure them, they are still files (no OpenDoc here), and they don't find data across other sources. We really didn't need yet another skin. We need a better way for computers to assist us at work, and we really could use Apple to take us there.
Nope. They could have any time, but there’s still no reason to. Moving your hands off the keyboard to reach out to a screen hinders productivity.
The ability to run iOS apps natively - did you see the part of the demo where they used an app using the touchpad... they will do touch on the Mac. Or look at the UI - interface elements have sliders and things have been given more space even in then menus - touch friendly.
Yes my first thought on seeing the new customisable menu bar was “looks familiar”. It isn’t a bad thing if it is essentially a big iPad
Thing is it is shifting Mac closer to iPad. same chip no doubt appliance like.
Mouse or touch depending on machine applications able to recompile across entire spectrum of devices.
no reason you can’t end up with a powerful DeskPad. mS studio done right.
Apple hit problems with 68K Apple hit problems with PowerPC Apple hit problems with Intel
At some point you have realise that only you care enough about what you’re trying to do to make sure you have all the pieces in place to do it.
Apple failing to deliver more than 2 updates to Mac Pro in 10 years this isn't due to silicon. The problems Apple hit on the Mac - like going from 60% to 20% market share in K-12 (mac+iPad) were not due to silicon. Mac shipments dropped 21% from 2019 to 2020 - with all other vendors on x86 it simply isn't about the silicon.
I should've just stuck with "they're Apple-designed chips". The Intel chips were wholly Intel products. These are Apple products and consumers do not care what the underlying architecture is.
It's not the Worldwide Consumer Conference though.
Does anyone have some rough info comparing the cost of the various Intel chips and the cost of an A12z?
As the A12z is effectively a 2018 chip, I'm assuming that Apple is holding back to show a beefed-up desktop optimised successor that will blow the A12z out of the water. I'm sure they did mention a family of upcoming chips. I'm just wondering if the baseline would be the A12z successor with maybe a couple of more powerful options up to something like a 64-core Graviton2 style chip for the Mac Pro and what the cost would be compared to Intel.
No word on Windows support? That's gonna be a deal breaker for some.
Why do people think that whenever something new comes out, everything old just stops working. Those people can just buy an Intel Mac, which will still be supported for years. If there aren’t any new ones sold, they can always buy a used one cheaper.
With the previous transition PowerPC was only supported until Snow Leopard. That's only two further OS releases. macOS Big Sur will support Macs that are 8 years old because the architecture has been stable. I don't think it's unreasonable for users to worry that recently purchased Macs will be receiving feature upgrades for a much shorter span than they may have previously expected.
No word on Windows support? That's gonna be a deal breaker for some.
Why do people think that whenever something new comes out, everything old just stops working. Those people can just buy an Intel Mac, which will still be supported for years. If there aren’t any new ones sold, they can always buy a used one cheaper.
With the previous transition PowerPC was only supported until Snow Leopard. That's only two further OS releases. macOS Big Sur will support Macs that are 8 years old because the architecture has been stable. I don't think it's unreasonable for users to worry that recently purchased Macs will be receiving feature upgrades for a much shorter span than they may have previously expected.
We cannot compare that transition to this. Apple was a much smaller company during that transition, they sold a fraction of the Macs they sell today and this was a time before the iPhone. Dropping support sooner and pushing users to the newer systems was all but necessary when Macs were their biggest revenue source. This was also a time when hardware was updated much more frequently than the OS. That has ALL changed today. Apple doesn't rely on Mac revenue much anymore... so supporting Macs for longer periods doesn't affect their bottom line like it did then.
Today, Apple is perfectly capable and willing to support all of their devices (with a few exceptions) for much longer periods... OS support for my 2009 iMac was finally dropped last Fall with the release of Catalina - that was a 10 year run. (But with a hack was able to get Catalina running on it). So yeah, if today's Apple says they'll support Intel Macs for years to come I'm going to believe them. Will it be 8 years? Probably not. But I would be happy with 5 years. By then, maybe Windows for ARM will be up to par with the Intel version and those who need it will be able to install and run it on Apple Silicon based Macs?
Apple hit problems with 68K Apple hit problems with PowerPC Apple hit problems with Intel
At some point you have realise that only you care enough about what you’re trying to do to make sure you have all the pieces in place to do it.
Apple failing to deliver more than 2 updates to Mac Pro in 10 years this isn't due to silicon. The problems Apple hit on the Mac - like going from 60% to 20% market share in K-12 (mac+iPad) were not due to silicon. Mac shipments dropped 21% from 2019 to 2020 - with all other vendors on x86 it simply isn't about the silicon.
Your points don't really have anything to do with anything. Apple's drop in the K-12 market is because they chose not to develop a machine cheap enough to keep their share at 60%. What they did was build a machine that allowed them to keep the most profitable 20%. Probably because they realised that the machine kids use at school doesn't seem to influence the machine they eventually use when they're in college or go to work.
There really is no point bleating on about market share, because for Apple it's of secondary concern when up against profit. So with that in mind, let's look at the problem they're trying to actually solve (their desktops and laptops running on a stagnating architecture), and what does the switch give them:
A machine that's cheaper to build. An ecosystem that is much simpler and cheaper to build software for, which benefits Apple's developers as well as Apple Machines that are optimised for the operating systems and software they're running. Machines that can be recycled and stripped down to power lower-end machines and devices later on.
I remember, years ago, when Apple bought PA-Semi, and we all thought that they were going to build their own PowerPC chips. The move to Intel was seen with much the same hysteria we're seeing from a few people here now. But we can see now that Intel was only ever a stop-gap. Complete control and integration was always the plan. I suspect that Apple's Silicon engineers knew precisely when Intel was going to hit the wall, and Apple's management knew that the company would do little about it because they have a near monopoly, so there was no real incentive for them to try harder.
The Mac Pro is PCIe 3.0 - which simply isn't fast enough. Even budget computers from AMD are now running PCIe 4. The Mac Pro 2019 was built using tech that was obsolete on launch. You can get a B550 motherboard with a PCIe 4.0 SSD for 50-100% better performance on storage.
PCIe-4 support depends on Intel, not on Apple. Show us any Xeon that supports PCIe-4 yet. Your point is irrelevant.
Apple could have gone PCIe 4.0 with AMD (which they use exclusively for GPUs) but decided to deliver obsolete technology. Isn't that relevant?
OK, performance and architecture differences put aside, how many Ryzens AMD could deliver matching Apple's specifications? This is a matter of quality and production scale. Even Intel can barely fulfill Apple's demands, if you melt a motherboard every couple of years the speed of your PCIe 4 won't help. Mac Pro is not a DIY home tinkerer's hobby.
Ryzen and EPYC (check the EPYC 7702P) are manufactured side-by-side Apple Silicon by TSMC. Each Mac Pro does come with a GPU made by AMD made on the same 7nm by TSMC. Quality? Scale to production? Not a problem to either Apple or AMD. Apple spent 5 years on doing nothing for the Mac Pro and then in late 2019 they went with a power heavy 14nm CPU and PCIe 3.0. It was obsolete on arrival.
The availability of GPUs from AMD may not be a reason to a total switch to AMD because Apple sells more models without discrete GPUs than those with AMD GPUs. And since a total switch would necessitate the rewriting of the whole Mac ecosystem (actually optimized for Intel), Apple may have chosen rewriting the whole ecosystem for Apple Silicon instead of AMD. That simply proves that AMD has failed to sell enough GPUs to Apple to make a total switch to AMD an attractive option. Mac Pro obsolete because of PCIe 3.0? Let be it. A DIY home tinkered PC beats the Mac Pro? Great, go for it, all nations need those creative home tinkerers. But businesses think differently than home tinkerers.
Additionally, two changes are coming to the app review process and will be implemented this summer. First, developers will not only be able to appeal decisions about whether an app violates a given guideline of the App Store Review Guidelines, but will also have a mechanism to challenge the guideline itself. Second, for apps that are already on the App Store, bug fixes will no longer be delayed over guideline violations except for those related to legal issues. Developers will instead be able to address the issue in their next submission.
Comments
People always think that any issue they don't want to deal with is a political issue, but it's only a political issue when legislation or politicians are involved. Basic human rights should not be considered political. The solutions might be somewhat political, but the issue isn't. It's like saying that respect or being polite is political.
Or look at the UI - interface elements have sliders and things have been given more space even in then menus - touch friendly.
The problem is that it is too much Mac - no matter if you came from System 4 or 6.0.5. You have a menu designed for 9" screens - now you have to chase across much larger screens to the top and back to the content. You have a way of structuring files designed for local 400k disks - and you still need to manually structure them, they are still files (no OpenDoc here), and they don't find data across other sources. We really didn't need yet another skin. We need a better way for computers to assist us at work, and we really could use Apple to take us there.
same chip
no doubt appliance like.
applications able to recompile across entire spectrum of devices.
no reason you can’t end up with a powerful DeskPad. mS studio done right.
The problems Apple hit on the Mac - like going from 60% to 20% market share in K-12 (mac+iPad) were not due to silicon.
Mac shipments dropped 21% from 2019 to 2020 - with all other vendors on x86 it simply isn't about the silicon.
As the A12z is effectively a 2018 chip, I'm assuming that Apple is holding back to show a beefed-up desktop optimised successor that will blow the A12z out of the water. I'm sure they did mention a family of upcoming chips. I'm just wondering if the baseline would be the A12z successor with maybe a couple of more powerful options up to something like a 64-core Graviton2 style chip for the Mac Pro and what the cost would be compared to Intel.
We cannot compare that transition to this. Apple was a much smaller company during that transition, they sold a fraction of the Macs they sell today and this was a time before the iPhone. Dropping support sooner and pushing users to the newer systems was all but necessary when Macs were their biggest revenue source. This was also a time when hardware was updated much more frequently than the OS. That has ALL changed today. Apple doesn't rely on Mac revenue much anymore... so supporting Macs for longer periods doesn't affect their bottom line like it did then.
Today, Apple is perfectly capable and willing to support all of their devices (with a few exceptions) for much longer periods... OS support for my 2009 iMac was finally dropped last Fall with the release of Catalina - that was a 10 year run. (But with a hack was able to get Catalina running on it). So yeah, if today's Apple says they'll support Intel Macs for years to come I'm going to believe them. Will it be 8 years? Probably not. But I would be happy with 5 years. By then, maybe Windows for ARM will be up to par with the Intel version and those who need it will be able to install and run it on Apple Silicon based Macs?
Your points don't really have anything to do with anything.
Apple's drop in the K-12 market is because they chose not to develop a machine cheap enough to keep their share at 60%. What they did was build a machine that allowed them to keep the most profitable 20%. Probably because they realised that the machine kids use at school doesn't seem to influence the machine they eventually use when they're in college or go to work.
There really is no point bleating on about market share, because for Apple it's of secondary concern when up against profit. So with that in mind, let's look at the problem they're trying to actually solve (their desktops and laptops running on a stagnating architecture), and what does the switch give them:
A machine that's cheaper to build.
An ecosystem that is much simpler and cheaper to build software for, which benefits Apple's developers as well as Apple
Machines that are optimised for the operating systems and software they're running.
Machines that can be recycled and stripped down to power lower-end machines and devices later on.
I remember, years ago, when Apple bought PA-Semi, and we all thought that they were going to build their own PowerPC chips. The move to Intel was seen with much the same hysteria we're seeing from a few people here now. But we can see now that Intel was only ever a stop-gap. Complete control and integration was always the plan. I suspect that Apple's Silicon engineers knew precisely when Intel was going to hit the wall, and Apple's management knew that the company would do little about it because they have a near monopoly, so there was no real incentive for them to try harder.
The problem will come if Microsoft decides to put some effort into its own ARM strategy.
https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2020/06/apple-reveals-new-developer-technologies-to-foster-the-next-generation-of-apps/
Nice, but who is deciding on the appeal?