Why the Mac's migration to Apple Silicon is bigger than ARM

12346

Comments

  • Reply 101 of 123
    mattinozmattinoz Posts: 1,711member
    Detnator said:
    Beats said:
    rain22 said:
    “ but it suggests that new Apple Silicon Macs will not be struggling to keep up with the graphics on Intel Macs.”

    That would be nice - but seems extremely dependent on programs being optimized. The anemic library of titles will probably shrink even further - at least until there is market saturation. 

    Mac users will be stuck using dumbed down iOS software for a long time I feel. 
    After all - This is the motivation isn’t it? Eventually have just 1 OS that can be modded to facilitate the device. 

    A-Series is closer than you think. We will see A14 this year which will surpass PS4 Pro graphics. Eventually iPad games and Mac games will be next-gen quality. We could potentially see iPad/Mac pass PS5 quality during PS5's lifetime.

    Yes, I know nerdcore gamers will compare this to $5,000 rigs just to sh** on Apple but the reality is, 99% of the population doesn't give a damn at this point. This isn't 1993 when 8-bit and 16-bit was a massive leap and at 7"(iPhone)-24"(iMac) screens there will be no need for 8k or something ridiculous.

    I think a smart move would be for Apple to encourage developers to support A14 games. We need a handful of titles that run better than that Tomb Raider demo even at the cost of leaving iPhone 6s users behind.

    I don't really know the first thing about serious PC gaming, other than that (a) through Apple's history so far, it's about as far from Apple's target market as there is, and (b) as you say, most people don't care...  However, thinking about how MS more or less created Halo to popularize the Xbox (if I recall correctly - someone feel free to tell me if I've got that wrong)...I just wonder...

    Let's say Apple could get even just one (though 2-3 would be even better) serious game developer (or if they could do it themselves) to come out with a really really good AAA game (whatever that really means, but I just mean anything that typical "real" PC gamers would take seriously), built (or re-built) specifically for Apple's tech (Apple Silicon [AS], Metal, etc), without Apple having to build a specific gaming Mac...

    And let's say, on something like a $3000, AS, 6K 32" iMac (so not a MBA, but it doesn't have to be a MP either), such a game(s) screamed, performance-wise by every metric.  Let's say it craps all over any PC that said gamers might work so hard to custom build for even vaguely similar dollars (simply because AS has just nailed it)...

    Then maybe other developers might come on board.  And then I just wonder what that would do to the PC gaming market.  I mean, sure, Apple's got a thriving gaming market now, but it's a significantly different market to the traditional gaming PC world.  And as I understand it, Apple's never put serious gaming GPUs or really cooperated with the gaming-specific technologies (no desire to).

    But if these new Macs scream with Apple's CPUs, GPUs, Metal, etc, without Apple having to doing anything significantly different specifically for AAA gamers, and if someone (Apple or someone else) takes it seriously and builds for it - anything that the PC gaming market would take seriously - then maybe "serious" PC gaming is going in a new direction in the future, leaving MS and Intel behind there also.

    I just wonder.
    You do understand Halos developers Bungie were originally Mac exclusive developers. The first public showing of the game was on the Macworld stage as part of SJ keynote.

    MS acquired Halo to popularize the Xbox they didn't create it.

    Detnatorfastasleep
  • Reply 102 of 123
    DetnatorDetnator Posts: 230member
    fox.kenji said:

    rob53 said:
    Good article but you left out how virtualization works and after doing a quick search of Apple's new Developer app, nothing showed up. Nothing for Rosetta either. Doesn't surprise me because it's probably a very proprietary set of software and hardware, which is fine with me.

    I saw that Parallels released a blog article mentioned their prototype version of Parallels was used for the demo but nothing about which port of Debian was used. Their blog keeps saying to check back later. Has anyone been able to ask this question of any of the macOS Big Sur Apple people during a WWDC conference call? If Parallels only had to create an Apple Silicon version of Parallels (ok, Im stopping to say ARM because it's obviously a lot more than just ARM developers will have to content with) while macOS Big Sur using Rosetta did the "conversion" then that is also a huge step by Apple. 
    Rosetta 2 does not support translation for virtualization 

    nuclide said:
    Arm Holdings (stylized as arm) is a semiconductor and software design company wholly owned by Japanese conglomerate SoftBank Group and its Vision Fund. 

    How is ARM "majority-owned by Chinese interests?"
    Yes that's partially correct. In 2018, SoftBank set up an ARM China joint venture and then sold off half of the interest in that to Chinese interests. That was likely to get around US restrictions on sharing ARM technology with Huawei. SoftBank also still needs money, so it could go further and sell more of ARM Ltd. In any case, apart from Qualcomm and Samsung, pretty much all of the mobile competitors using ARM are served by ARM China.  
    This cannot be allowed to continue happening. ARM architecture is way far too important to be allowed to be appropriated by the Chinese Communist government. Something must be done.
    Indeed... if they're selling, perhaps Apple could be buying.  I'm not sure how realistic that idea is, but it would seem to resolve more than one issue:  keep more of it out of the hands of the Chinese govt for one.  And for Apple:  Why license if you can afford to own?
  • Reply 103 of 123
    DetnatorDetnator Posts: 230member

    mjtomlin said:
    gwmac said:
    Any speculation as to how many Apple silicon cores will go into various models? I wonder how many they will put in a Mac Pro vs MacBook Air for example. 

    Well Apple mentioned that they were creating a new "Family" of SoCs for the Mac, not just a new series. If we're going by current naming conventions, I'd guess an X-series for low to mid-end (consumer), and Z-series for mid to high-end (pro). Of course they could another route and create different models based off desktop vs. mobile rather than consumer vs. pro.
    There's room for a "Y" in there between "X" and "Z" ;)
  • Reply 104 of 123
    DetnatorDetnator Posts: 230member
    Riker said:
    crowley said:
    I wonder if the higher end Macs will have A chips with integrated GPUs, or if there will be non-GPU variants where Apple have a dedicated separate GPU, presumably from AMD.

    You'll see what we have now.  Models which have only the on-CPU GPU and those which have that AND a separate, higher performance dedicated GPU.
    But will the dedicated GPU be an AMD one?  I suspect not. I suspect whatever GPU they use - dedicated or on-CPU - it'll be an Apple one, and it'll beat, possibly smoke, everything else in-class.  Or if that's not the case in the first ones later this year, it'll be the case not long after.
  • Reply 105 of 123
    DetnatorDetnator Posts: 230member
    mattinoz said:
    Detnator said:
    Beats said:
    rain22 said:
    “ but it suggests that new Apple Silicon Macs will not be struggling to keep up with the graphics on Intel Macs.”

    That would be nice - but seems extremely dependent on programs being optimized. The anemic library of titles will probably shrink even further - at least until there is market saturation. 

    Mac users will be stuck using dumbed down iOS software for a long time I feel. 
    After all - This is the motivation isn’t it? Eventually have just 1 OS that can be modded to facilitate the device. 

    A-Series is closer than you think. We will see A14 this year which will surpass PS4 Pro graphics. Eventually iPad games and Mac games will be next-gen quality. We could potentially see iPad/Mac pass PS5 quality during PS5's lifetime.

    Yes, I know nerdcore gamers will compare this to $5,000 rigs just to sh** on Apple but the reality is, 99% of the population doesn't give a damn at this point. This isn't 1993 when 8-bit and 16-bit was a massive leap and at 7"(iPhone)-24"(iMac) screens there will be no need for 8k or something ridiculous.

    I think a smart move would be for Apple to encourage developers to support A14 games. We need a handful of titles that run better than that Tomb Raider demo even at the cost of leaving iPhone 6s users behind.

    I don't really know the first thing about serious PC gaming, other than that (a) through Apple's history so far, it's about as far from Apple's target market as there is, and (b) as you say, most people don't care...  However, thinking about how MS more or less created Halo to popularize the Xbox (if I recall correctly - someone feel free to tell me if I've got that wrong)...I just wonder...

    Let's say Apple could get even just one (though 2-3 would be even better) serious game developer (or if they could do it themselves) to come out with a really really good AAA game (whatever that really means, but I just mean anything that typical "real" PC gamers would take seriously), built (or re-built) specifically for Apple's tech (Apple Silicon [AS], Metal, etc), without Apple having to build a specific gaming Mac...

    And let's say, on something like a $3000, AS, 6K 32" iMac (so not a MBA, but it doesn't have to be a MP either), such a game(s) screamed, performance-wise by every metric.  Let's say it craps all over any PC that said gamers might work so hard to custom build for even vaguely similar dollars (simply because AS has just nailed it)...

    Then maybe other developers might come on board.  And then I just wonder what that would do to the PC gaming market.  I mean, sure, Apple's got a thriving gaming market now, but it's a significantly different market to the traditional gaming PC world.  And as I understand it, Apple's never put serious gaming GPUs or really cooperated with the gaming-specific technologies (no desire to).

    But if these new Macs scream with Apple's CPUs, GPUs, Metal, etc, without Apple having to doing anything significantly different specifically for AAA gamers, and if someone (Apple or someone else) takes it seriously and builds for it - anything that the PC gaming market would take seriously - then maybe "serious" PC gaming is going in a new direction in the future, leaving MS and Intel behind there also.

    I just wonder.
    You do understand Halos developers Bungie were originally Mac exclusive developers. The first public showing of the game was on the Macworld stage as part of SJ keynote.

    MS acquired Halo to popularize the Xbox they didn't create it.

    I didn't (understand or know that), but I guess I do now.  It does ring a bell now you mention it.  Thanks.
  • Reply 106 of 123
    DetnatorDetnator Posts: 230member
    narwhal said:
    rain22 said:
    Mac users will be stuck using dumbed down iOS software for a long time I feel.  
    Here's news for you, Rain. Very few new apps are written for macOS (or Windows). Apps today are developed for the web, iOS and Android.

     @narwhal: It may look that way but ALOT more programs are X86/64 The rest of the world decided to settle on x86. See that console gaming industry. Most LOB (Line of business) is x86. Real gaming on the mac is dead. Steam will not run on new ARM macs. So all those games that people bought on steam will be worthless for those who own these new ARM macs. Also when it comes to programs, There is Photoshop for ipad which is what your ARM mac will run and then there is REAL Photoshop with all of the x86/64 plugins that people have made. I wonder if they will port their plugins to the new ARM photoshop. Will the ARM photoshop even run plugins. The same is true for office will you get ipad office on ARM or REAL office that you do now? Also this is after Apple throws you out in the cold by stripping roseta2  away from you as they did is mac OS 10.7 i believe. Lets also not forget that wonderful smooth transition from 32-64 bit only apps that nearly killed Steam on the mac. Also how nice will apple play with developers and users once they have hegemony. Apple silicon is the ultimate lock in. I can see apple using gatekeeper to make their platforms only use the mac app store. That means you new $899-$10,000 mac is a glorified locked in ipad with a keyboard and mouse. At least with intel macs you can run crossover to get older 32-bit versions of windows apps and wine. Will you get that on your ARM mac. Lets not forget this is the same company that will not let you change your default web browser, or maps app in iOS because they want total control of the user experience. I bet you this will be coming to a mac near you, in mac OS 11.3 or whatever they are going to call it. This is a sad day for the computing industry indeed, if the market falls for Apple and their lock in scam.


    Yeah... you just showed how completely you don't get it.  Perhaps it's a sad day for the small portion of Apple's target market that care about all the crap you just spouted, but the vast majority of Apple's target market don't care about all that and do care about the stuff that Apple prioritizes over all that - the stuff that they're now going to be able to do better than they could before. One person's "lock-in" is another person's safe haven.  Apple's not throwing us out in the cold, they're moving us from one vaguely warm place with a bunch of issues, to a warmer safer place. 

    Apple sells countless millions and millions and millions of iOS devices (or is it billions?) and certainly millions of Macs.  99% of those iOS device users don't give a rip that they can only get their apps from the App Store.  In fact most of them prefer it that way and rather like that they don't have to rely on developers coming up with user friendly distribution systems (when so many don't) because Apple's done all that work for them.  The vast majority of apps on the Mac App Store being so successful speaks to that too.  Even MS has made Office downloadable from the Mac App Store and it's still the full version with a license that's fully compatible even in enterprise environments.

    And updates. Some of us like that there's only ONE update service running on our iOS devices, and only one update service running on our Macs for most of our services.  And those apps that refuse to go through the Mac App Store are infuriating in the way they handle their updating services.

    And this is the same story with people who want Apple to allow them to upgrade their own hardware.  Despite the fact that you can't crack your iPhone or iPad open and "upgrade" its RAM or storage, Apple still sells countless millions of them - so many more of them than they sell computers.

    The old ways of computing are dying.  The vast majority of today's users care about the stuff you mentioned about as much as they care that they can't run an iPad with a 1970's text based OS. Everyone complaining about these changes today are the same types of people that thought GUIs would never take off because serious computer users couldn't do as much with them. It was true - there was -and still is - plenty a text based UI can do on a computer that a GUI can't or doesn't.  But apart from a very small minority (in the consumer world, excluding sysadmins and what have you) who cares?  Meanwhile the rest of us were doing creative stuff with MacPaint, which was the very beginning of what paved the way for stuff like Photoshop today.

    Apple's target market has always been "the rest of us".  The people that the rest of the computer market doesn't cater to.  Perhaps that market will always be the minority - if the Mac market is anything to go by it's only 10% or so (though iOS's market share says it's a lot more than that in the mobile space), but they key here is: Apple caters to that small market EXCEEDINGLY well - better than anyone else by far, and DOESN'T WANT to or care to cater to the rest at all.  By doing a few things well they do it exceedingly well, instead of the mass nightmare that Windows and Android are (for the people who Apple is targeting). 

    With these upcoming changes, Apple is simply doing more of the same. They've always wanted control because they can deliver a better experience for THEIR TARGET MARKET - the people that care about the experience more than anything else - than anyone else, including the users themselves, can deliver.  The vast majority of Apple users don't know about, don't want to know about, nor care in the slightest about Steam, or Crossover, or Wine, or Windows apps, or 32 vs 64 bit, or Terminal, or any web browser other than the built in one (that works just fine for their needs and is faster and safer anyway), or any of the other crap you're spouting.  

    Don't get me wrong, I'm not ignorant.  I know what all that stuff is, and I do happen to care about some of it, but I don't delude myself that I'm in anything other than a tiny minority, and I handle my expectations accordingly.

    By the way, not only do your comments show you don't get it, they also show you're completely ignorant.  They showed in the keynote the new Apple Silicon Mac running REAL Photoshop and REAL MS Word, natively.  You should pay attention and get your facts straight before you spout all your uninformed Apple-bashing conspiracy theories.  

    As I said: One person's "lock-in" is another person's safe haven.  Just because you're one of the "one person" people in that statement doesn't negate the preferences and desires of the "another person" people.  Call it a prison, keeping you "locked in" if you want (except you're not locked in - you can go to Windows/Android/Linux/etc. any time you want).  Some of us call it a garden, with walls keeping the bad stuff out.  And we much prefer it that way.
    fastasleep
  • Reply 106 of 123
    DetnatorDetnator Posts: 230member
    narwhal said:
    rain22 said:
    Mac users will be stuck using dumbed down iOS software for a long time I feel.  
    Here's news for you, Rain. Very few new apps are written for macOS (or Windows). Apps today are developed for the web, iOS and Android.

     @narwhal: It may look that way but ALOT more programs are X86/64 The rest of the world decided to settle on x86. See that console gaming industry. Most LOB (Line of business) is x86. Real gaming on the mac is dead. Steam will not run on new ARM macs. So all those games that people bought on steam will be worthless for those who own these new ARM macs. Also when it comes to programs, There is Photoshop for ipad which is what your ARM mac will run and then there is REAL Photoshop with all of the x86/64 plugins that people have made. I wonder if they will port their plugins to the new ARM photoshop. Will the ARM photoshop even run plugins. The same is true for office will you get ipad office on ARM or REAL office that you do now? Also this is after Apple throws you out in the cold by stripping roseta2  away from you as they did is mac OS 10.7 i believe. Lets also not forget that wonderful smooth transition from 32-64 bit only apps that nearly killed Steam on the mac. Also how nice will apple play with developers and users once they have hegemony. Apple silicon is the ultimate lock in. I can see apple using gatekeeper to make their platforms only use the mac app store. That means you new $899-$10,000 mac is a glorified locked in ipad with a keyboard and mouse. At least with intel macs you can run crossover to get older 32-bit versions of windows apps and wine. Will you get that on your ARM mac. Lets not forget this is the same company that will not let you change your default web browser, or maps app in iOS because they want total control of the user experience. I bet you this will be coming to a mac near you, in mac OS 11.3 or whatever they are going to call it. This is a sad day for the computing industry indeed, if the market falls for Apple and their lock in scam.


    Yeah... you just showed how completely you don't get it.  Perhaps it's a sad day for the small portion of Apple's target market that care about all the crap you just spouted, but the vast majority of Apple's target market don't care about all that and do care about the stuff that Apple prioritizes over all that - the stuff that they're now going to be able to do better than they could before. One person's "lock-in" is another person's safe haven.  Apple's not throwing us out in the cold, they're moving us from one vaguely warm place with a bunch of issues, to a warmer safer place. 

    Apple sells countless millions and millions and millions of iOS devices (or is it billions?) and certainly millions of Macs.  99% of those iOS device users don't give a rip that they can only get their apps from the App Store.  In fact most of them prefer it that way and rather like that they don't have to rely on developers coming up with user friendly distribution systems (when so many don't) because Apple's done all that work for them.  The vast majority of apps on the Mac App Store being so successful speaks to that too.  Even MS has made Office downloadable from the Mac App Store and it's still the full version with a license that's fully compatible even in enterprise environments.

    And updates. Some of us like that there's only ONE update service running on our iOS devices, and only one update service running on our Macs for most of our services.  And those apps that refuse to go through the Mac App Store are infuriating in the way they handle their updating services.

    And this is the same story with people who want Apple to allow them to upgrade their own hardware.  Despite the fact that you can't crack your iPhone or iPad open and "upgrade" its RAM or storage, Apple still sells countless millions of them - so many more of them than they sell computers.

    The old ways of computing are dying.  The vast majority of today's users care about the stuff you mentioned about as much as they care that they can't run an iPad with a 1970's text based OS. Everyone complaining about these changes today are the same types of people that thought GUIs would never take off because serious computer users couldn't do as much with them. It was true - there was -and still is - plenty a text based UI can do on a computer that a GUI can't or doesn't.  But apart from a very small minority (in the consumer world, excluding sysadmins and what have you) who cares?  Meanwhile the rest of us were doing creative stuff with MacPaint, which was the very beginning of what paved the way for stuff like Photoshop today.

    Apple's target market has always been "the rest of us".  The people that the rest of the computer market doesn't cater to.  Perhaps that market will always be the minority - if the Mac market is anything to go by it's only 10% or so (though iOS's market share says it's a lot more than that in the mobile space), but they key here is: Apple caters to that small market EXCEEDINGLY well - better than anyone else by far, and DOESN'T WANT to or care to cater to the rest at all.  By doing a few things well they do it exceedingly well, instead of the mass nightmare that Windows and Android are (for the people who Apple is targeting). 

    With these upcoming changes, Apple is simply doing more of the same. They've always wanted control because they can deliver a better experience for THEIR TARGET MARKET - the people that care about the experience more than anything else - than anyone else, including the users themselves, can deliver.  The vast majority of Apple users don't know about, don't want to know about, nor care in the slightest about Steam, or Crossover, or Wine, or Windows apps, or 32 vs 64 bit, or Terminal, or any web browser other than the built in one (that works just fine for their needs and is faster and safer anyway), or any of the other crap you're spouting.  

    Don't get me wrong, I'm not ignorant.  I know what all that stuff is, and I do happen to care about some of it, but I don't delude myself that I'm in anything other than a tiny minority, and I handle my expectations accordingly.

    By the way, not only do your comments show you don't get it, they also show you're completely ignorant.  They showed in the keynote the new Apple Silicon Mac running REAL Photoshop and REAL MS Word, natively.  You should pay attention and get your facts straight before you spout all your uninformed Apple-bashing conspiracy theories.  

    As I said: One person's "lock-in" is another person's safe haven.  Just because you're one of the "one person" people in that statement doesn't negate the preferences and desires of the "another person" people.  Call it a prison, keeping you "locked in" if you want (except you're not locked in - you can go to Windows/Android/Linux/etc. any time you want).  Some of us call it a garden, with walls keeping the bad stuff out.  And we much prefer it that way.
  • Reply 106 of 123
    DetnatorDetnator Posts: 230member
    narwhal said:
    rain22 said:
    Mac users will be stuck using dumbed down iOS software for a long time I feel.  
    Here's news for you, Rain. Very few new apps are written for macOS (or Windows). Apps today are developed for the web, iOS and Android.

     @narwhal: It may look that way but ALOT more programs are X86/64 The rest of the world decided to settle on x86. See that console gaming industry. Most LOB (Line of business) is x86. Real gaming on the mac is dead. Steam will not run on new ARM macs. So all those games that people bought on steam will be worthless for those who own these new ARM macs. Also when it comes to programs, There is Photoshop for ipad which is what your ARM mac will run and then there is REAL Photoshop with all of the x86/64 plugins that people have made. I wonder if they will port their plugins to the new ARM photoshop. Will the ARM photoshop even run plugins. The same is true for office will you get ipad office on ARM or REAL office that you do now? Also this is after Apple throws you out in the cold by stripping roseta2  away from you as they did is mac OS 10.7 i believe. Lets also not forget that wonderful smooth transition from 32-64 bit only apps that nearly killed Steam on the mac. Also how nice will apple play with developers and users once they have hegemony. Apple silicon is the ultimate lock in. I can see apple using gatekeeper to make their platforms only use the mac app store. That means you new $899-$10,000 mac is a glorified locked in ipad with a keyboard and mouse. At least with intel macs you can run crossover to get older 32-bit versions of windows apps and wine. Will you get that on your ARM mac. Lets not forget this is the same company that will not let you change your default web browser, or maps app in iOS because they want total control of the user experience. I bet you this will be coming to a mac near you, in mac OS 11.3 or whatever they are going to call it. This is a sad day for the computing industry indeed, if the market falls for Apple and their lock in scam.


    Yeah... you just showed how completely you don't get it.  Perhaps it's a sad day for the small portion of Apple's target market that care about all the crap you just spouted, but the vast majority of Apple's target market don't care about all that and do care about the stuff that Apple prioritizes over all that - the stuff that they're now going to be able to do better than they could before. One person's "lock-in" is another person's safe haven.  Apple's not throwing us out in the cold, they're moving us from one vaguely warm place with a bunch of issues, to a warmer safer place. 

    Apple sells countless millions and millions and millions of iOS devices (or is it billions?) and certainly millions of Macs.  99% of those iOS device users don't give a rip that they can only get their apps from the App Store.  In fact most of them prefer it that way and rather like that they don't have to rely on developers coming up with user friendly distribution systems (when so many don't) because Apple's done all that work for them.  The vast majority of apps on the Mac App Store being so successful speaks to that too.  Even MS has made Office downloadable from the Mac App Store and it's still the full version with a license that's fully compatible even in enterprise environments.

    And updates. Some of us like that there's only ONE update service running on our iOS devices, and only one update service running on our Macs for most of our services.  And those apps that refuse to go through the Mac App Store are infuriating in the way they handle their updating services.

    And this is the same story with people who want Apple to allow them to upgrade their own hardware.  Despite the fact that you can't crack your iPhone or iPad open and "upgrade" its RAM or storage, Apple still sells countless millions of them - so many more of them than they sell computers.

    The old ways of computing are dying.  The vast majority of today's users care about the stuff you mentioned about as much as they care that they can't run an iPad with a 1970's text based OS. Everyone complaining about these changes today are the same types of people that thought GUIs would never take off because serious computer users couldn't do as much with them. It was true - there was -and still is - plenty a text based UI can do on a computer that a GUI can't or doesn't.  But apart from a very small minority (in the consumer world, excluding sysadmins and what have you) who cares?  Meanwhile the rest of us were doing creative stuff with MacPaint, which was the very beginning of what paved the way for stuff like Photoshop today.

    Apple's target market has always been "the rest of us".  The people that the rest of the computer market doesn't cater to.  Perhaps that market will always be the minority - if the Mac market is anything to go by it's only 10% or so (though iOS's market share says it's a lot more than that in the mobile space), but they key here is: Apple caters to that small market EXCEEDINGLY well - better than anyone else by far, and DOESN'T WANT to or care to cater to the rest at all.  By doing a few things well they do it exceedingly well, instead of the mass nightmare that Windows and Android are (for the people who Apple is targeting). 

    With these upcoming changes, Apple is simply doing more of the same. They've always wanted control because they can deliver a better experience for THEIR TARGET MARKET - the people that care about the experience more than anything else - than anyone else, including the users themselves, can deliver.  The vast majority of Apple users don't know about, don't want to know about, nor care in the slightest about Steam, or Crossover, or Wine, or Windows apps, or 32 vs 64 bit, or Terminal, or any web browser other than the built in one (that works just fine for their needs and is faster and safer anyway), or any of the other crap you're spouting.  

    Don't get me wrong, I'm not ignorant.  I know what all that stuff is, and I do happen to care about some of it, but I don't delude myself that I'm in anything other than a tiny minority, and I handle my expectations accordingly.

    By the way, not only do your comments show you don't get it, they also show you're completely ignorant.  They showed in the keynote the new Apple Silicon Mac running REAL Photoshop and REAL MS Word, natively.  You should pay attention and get your facts straight before you spout all your uninformed Apple-bashing conspiracy theories.  

    As I said: One person's "lock-in" is another person's safe haven.  Just because you're one of the "one person" people in that statement doesn't negate the preferences and desires of the "another person" people.  Call it a prison, keeping you "locked in" if you want (except you're not locked in - you can go to Windows/Android/Linux/etc. any time you want).  Some of us call it a garden, with walls keeping the bad stuff out.  And we much prefer it that way.
    cflcardsfan80
  • Reply 109 of 123
    rain22 said:
    “ but it suggests that new Apple Silicon Macs will not be struggling to keep up with the graphics on Intel Macs.”

    That would be nice - but seems extremely dependent on programs being optimized. The anemic library of titles will probably shrink even further - at least until there is market saturation. 

    Mac users will be stuck using dumbed down iOS software for a long time I feel. 
    After all - This is the motivation isn’t it? Eventually have just 1 OS that can be modded to facilitate the device. 
    With the macOS versions of Adobe CC, MS Office, plus all of Apple's macOS Applications including Final Cut Pro X and Logic Pro X already running Natively, and the Universe of x86-64 Mac Applications running at  completely usable speeds already, how can you say that?

    Watch the WWDC Keynote, starting at 1:26:02 (or go back to 1:08:00 to see Big Sur running Natively), and then come back and revise your opinion...
    fastasleep
  • Reply 110 of 123
    darthw said:
    Will it be possible, eventually, for Apple to make faster SoCs than the fastest most powerful intel Xenon chips?
    I used to worry about that; but after seeing what they can already accomplish with a 2-generations-old iPad SoC (with perhaps half its Cores tied behind its back), I have no doubt that, by the time they are ready to transition the Mac Pro, they will blow the doors off of it!!!
    cflcardsfan80fastasleep
  • Reply 111 of 123
    crowley said:
    I wonder if the higher end Macs will have A chips with integrated GPUs, or if there will be non-GPU variants where Apple have a dedicated separate GPU, presumably from AMD.
    I submit that, by the time they get to the Mac Pro; there will be full PCIe support for dGPU cards; and before that, eGPU support will return with the TB3/USB4 Support.

    Afterall, they already have all the drivers to make that happen. They probably have already been built-into the Developer-Preview of Big Sur; but there is no hardware support (yet).
  • Reply 112 of 123
    darthw said:
    Will it be possible, eventually, for Apple to make faster SoCs than the fastest most powerful intel Xenon chips?
    Yes. I just read that the new Japanese super computer, that is the fastest in the world is built using Arm chips.
    Now all we need is that Mac Pro with 720 64-core arm64FX SoCs!

    (I kid, I kid!)
  • Reply 113 of 123
    gwmac said:
    Any speculation as to how many Apple silicon cores will go into various models? I wonder how many they will put in a Mac Pro vs MacBook Air for example. 
    I predict that the MBA will have more and faster Cores than the A12Z, and the Mac Pro will have many more and much faster Cores than that.

    How did I do?  ;-)
  • Reply 114 of 123
    mcdave said:
    The last section was interesting. It’s odd that Apple would move from one 3rd party ISA to another except to divorce itself from 3rd party components. Perhaps what they’ve also done is made their App ecosystem ISA-independent.
    Apple's Architecture-Class License with arm Holdings already allows them to do anything they want. So, essentially, they get all the advantages of having a ready-made ISA and Architecture (and "Peripherals" IP Library) to draw-upon; with all the advantages of being able to extend/replace/deviate from that whenever it suits them! So, the best of both worlds!

    Having said that...

    I guarantee that if Intel would License x86 and AMD was allowed to License x64 ISAs, then Apple would at least be building Instruction Set Decoders (think hardware Rosetta with no "Translation" needed) into their SoCs.
  • Reply 115 of 123
    fox.kenji said:

    rob53 said:
    Good article but you left out how virtualization works and after doing a quick search of Apple's new Developer app, nothing showed up. Nothing for Rosetta either. Doesn't surprise me because it's probably a very proprietary set of software and hardware, which is fine with me.

    I saw that Parallels released a blog article mentioned their prototype version of Parallels was used for the demo but nothing about which port of Debian was used. Their blog keeps saying to check back later. Has anyone been able to ask this question of any of the macOS Big Sur Apple people during a WWDC conference call? If Parallels only had to create an Apple Silicon version of Parallels (ok, Im stopping to say ARM because it's obviously a lot more than just ARM developers will have to content with) while macOS Big Sur using Rosetta did the "conversion" then that is also a huge step by Apple. 
    Rosetta 2 does not support translation for virtualization 

    nuclide said:
    Arm Holdings (stylized as arm) is a semiconductor and software design company wholly owned by Japanese conglomerate SoftBank Group and its Vision Fund. 

    How is ARM "majority-owned by Chinese interests?"
    Yes that's partially correct. In 2018, SoftBank set up an ARM China joint venture and then sold off half of the interest in that to Chinese interests. That was likely to get around US restrictions on sharing ARM technology with Huawei. SoftBank also still needs money, so it could go further and sell more of ARM Ltd. In any case, apart from Qualcomm and Samsung, pretty much all of the mobile competitors using ARM are served by ARM China.  
    This cannot be allowed to continue happening. ARM architecture is way far too important to be allowed to be appropriated by the Chinese Communist government. Something must be done.
    What, exactly, do you propose?

    what I wish is that Apple purchased arm Holdings from Softbank before China sunk its teeth into it.

    But it didn’t...
  • Reply 116 of 123
    narwhal said:
    rain22 said:
    Mac users will be stuck using dumbed down iOS software for a long time I feel.  
    Here's news for you, Rain. Very few new apps are written for macOS (or Windows). Apps today are developed for the web, iOS and Android.

     @narwhal: It may look that way but ALOT more programs are X86/64 The rest of the world decided to settle on x86. See that console gaming industry. Most LOB (Line of business) is x86. Real gaming on the mac is dead. Steam will not run on new ARM macs. So all those games that people bought on steam will be worthless for those who own these new ARM macs. Also when it comes to programs, There is Photoshop for ipad which is what your ARM mac will run and then there is REAL Photoshop with all of the x86/64 plugins that people have made. I wonder if they will port their plugins to the new ARM photoshop. Will the ARM photoshop even run plugins. The same is true for office will you get ipad office on ARM or REAL office that you do now? Also this is after Apple throws you out in the cold by stripping roseta2  away from you as they did is mac OS 10.7 i believe. Lets also not forget that wonderful smooth transition from 32-64 bit only apps that nearly killed Steam on the mac. Also how nice will apple play with developers and users once they have hegemony. Apple silicon is the ultimate lock in. I can see apple using gatekeeper to make their platforms only use the mac app store. That means you new $899-$10,000 mac is a glorified locked in ipad with a keyboard and mouse. At least with intel macs you can run crossover to get older 32-bit versions of windows apps and wine. Will you get that on your ARM mac. Lets not forget this is the same company that will not let you change your default web browser, or maps app in iOS because they want total control of the user experience. I bet you this will be coming to a mac near you, in mac OS 11.3 or whatever they are going to call it. This is a sad day for the computing industry indeed, if the market falls for Apple and their lock in scam.


    You need to watch the WWDC Keynote, starting at 1:26:02.

    The Photoshop they are running is full-blown, CC Photoshop, running natively. As far as Plugins go, those not recompiled on day 1 will be handled by Rosetta 2, according to Apple.
  • Reply 117 of 123
    cpsro said:
    Ah, so the lousy webcam in most Macs is because of Intel.
    /s
    It seems like planned obsolescence to me.
    Do you think you really need 4k video to do video chats with the subject being your face (or junk) 4 inches away from the lens? WTF else do you plan to do with a laptop’s lid-mounted, front-facing camera; shoot the next 8k installment of The Hobbit?!?

    Seems like useless feature-checklisting to me.
    cflcardsfan80
  • Reply 118 of 123
    fastasleepfastasleep Posts: 5,896member
    gremlin said:
    The new market-friendly name for Apple silicon has to  be AppleCore 🤔
    I haven’t had time to watch the keynote, so maybe I missed something, but I hope they go with “M” series for the macOS 11+ Apple silicon!
    They're already using M for their motion coprocessors.
  • Reply 119 of 123
    mattinoz said:
    mjtomlin said:
    crowley said:
    I wonder if the higher end Macs will have A chips with integrated GPUs, or if there will be non-GPU variants where Apple have a dedicated separate GPU, presumably from AMD.
    I'm guessing we may have seen the last of AMD / NIVIDA in any future Mac. The ARM GPU cores are no less as impressive or scalable than the CPU cores. That's another significant cost savings for Apple. It also insures that the GPU is optimized for Metal. This was the point of Metal from the beginning and why OpenGL was sent to the dustbin. Apple has been planning this move for almost a decade and I think it runs much deeper and faster than most people suspect; no INTEL/AMD, no AMD/NIVIDA and soon no Qualcomm.

    The end of dependence on competitors or a single source for parts. Complete design and manufacturing freedom.

    I suspect we'll also see the price drop as times goes on since they will be able to maintain margins and expand their base at the same time; maybe -$100 on the low end and $100s of dollars up the chain to the higher spec'd hardware.

    These new Macs will still support discrete GPUs. There’s no reason to think they won’t.

    Would not be at all surprised if the Developer kits have a GPU in them. Given they were supposedly driving the XDR display.

    No reason to believe that.

    https://wccftech.com/ipad-pro-compatible-pro-display-xdr/

  • Reply 120 of 123
    mattinozmattinoz Posts: 1,711member
    mattinoz said:
    mjtomlin said:
    crowley said:
    I wonder if the higher end Macs will have A chips with integrated GPUs, or if there will be non-GPU variants where Apple have a dedicated separate GPU, presumably from AMD.
    I'm guessing we may have seen the last of AMD / NIVIDA in any future Mac. The ARM GPU cores are no less as impressive or scalable than the CPU cores. That's another significant cost savings for Apple. It also insures that the GPU is optimized for Metal. This was the point of Metal from the beginning and why OpenGL was sent to the dustbin. Apple has been planning this move for almost a decade and I think it runs much deeper and faster than most people suspect; no INTEL/AMD, no AMD/NIVIDA and soon no Qualcomm.

    The end of dependence on competitors or a single source for parts. Complete design and manufacturing freedom.

    I suspect we'll also see the price drop as times goes on since they will be able to maintain margins and expand their base at the same time; maybe -$100 on the low end and $100s of dollars up the chain to the higher spec'd hardware.

    These new Macs will still support discrete GPUs. There’s no reason to think they won’t.

    Would not be at all surprised if the Developer kits have a GPU in them. Given they were supposedly driving the XDR display.

    No reason to believe that.

    https://wccftech.com/ipad-pro-compatible-pro-display-xdr/


    However do they find all the extra pixels?
    Detnator said:
    mattinoz said:
    Detnator said:
    Beats said:
    rain22 said:
    “ but it suggests that new Apple Silicon Macs will not be struggling to keep up with the graphics on Intel Macs.”

    That would be nice - but seems extremely dependent on programs being optimized. The anemic library of titles will probably shrink even further - at least until there is market saturation. 

    Mac users will be stuck using dumbed down iOS software for a long time I feel. 
    After all - This is the motivation isn’t it? Eventually have just 1 OS that can be modded to facilitate the device. 

    A-Series is closer than you think. We will see A14 this year which will surpass PS4 Pro graphics. Eventually iPad games and Mac games will be next-gen quality. We could potentially see iPad/Mac pass PS5 quality during PS5's lifetime.

    Yes, I know nerdcore gamers will compare this to $5,000 rigs just to sh** on Apple but the reality is, 99% of the population doesn't give a damn at this point. This isn't 1993 when 8-bit and 16-bit was a massive leap and at 7"(iPhone)-24"(iMac) screens there will be no need for 8k or something ridiculous.

    I think a smart move would be for Apple to encourage developers to support A14 games. We need a handful of titles that run better than that Tomb Raider demo even at the cost of leaving iPhone 6s users behind.

    I don't really know the first thing about serious PC gaming, other than that (a) through Apple's history so far, it's about as far from Apple's target market as there is, and (b) as you say, most people don't care...  However, thinking about how MS more or less created Halo to popularize the Xbox (if I recall correctly - someone feel free to tell me if I've got that wrong)...I just wonder...

    Let's say Apple could get even just one (though 2-3 would be even better) serious game developer (or if they could do it themselves) to come out with a really really good AAA game (whatever that really means, but I just mean anything that typical "real" PC gamers would take seriously), built (or re-built) specifically for Apple's tech (Apple Silicon [AS], Metal, etc), without Apple having to build a specific gaming Mac...

    And let's say, on something like a $3000, AS, 6K 32" iMac (so not a MBA, but it doesn't have to be a MP either), such a game(s) screamed, performance-wise by every metric.  Let's say it craps all over any PC that said gamers might work so hard to custom build for even vaguely similar dollars (simply because AS has just nailed it)...

    Then maybe other developers might come on board.  And then I just wonder what that would do to the PC gaming market.  I mean, sure, Apple's got a thriving gaming market now, but it's a significantly different market to the traditional gaming PC world.  And as I understand it, Apple's never put serious gaming GPUs or really cooperated with the gaming-specific technologies (no desire to).

    But if these new Macs scream with Apple's CPUs, GPUs, Metal, etc, without Apple having to doing anything significantly different specifically for AAA gamers, and if someone (Apple or someone else) takes it seriously and builds for it - anything that the PC gaming market would take seriously - then maybe "serious" PC gaming is going in a new direction in the future, leaving MS and Intel behind there also.

    I just wonder.
    You do understand Halos developers Bungie were originally Mac exclusive developers. The first public showing of the game was on the Macworld stage as part of SJ keynote.

    MS acquired Halo to popularize the Xbox they didn't create it.

    I didn't (understand or know that), but I guess I do now.  It does ring a bell now you mention it.  Thanks.

    There is a myth of a Magazine cover disk with a playable demo but that issue of the mag in question didn't even make it to Australia.
Sign In or Register to comment.