With all due respect, it is less "knowledge of business, supply chain and vertical integration" that gets bandied about by journalism graduates who have never worked a day in engineering, manufacturing, product management etc. than it is Apple boosterism. Simply put: do you folks honestly think that Apple will be the first company to make their own CPUs? Because if you want vertical integration, Samsung has that in spades. They make the CPUs, RAM, SSD, screens and cameras! And unlike Apple, Samsung actually MAKES these components in their own factories and foundries where "Apple Silicon" is actually made by TSMC (and was previously by Samsung). And before Samsung, IBM and Motorola used to make their own components too.
But they don’t make their own mobile OS when using Android. Vertical integration fail.
Things are going to get more expensive as Apple squeezes its customers through software - and will justify higher hardware prices soon after. Apple user's already pay 30% more for everything - software, ringtones, in-game purchases, subscriptions, books, hardware, cables, hotel rooms, you name it... Once Apple has full control over its users - $700 coasters are going to look like a deal.
I am gonna bet that it will be just iPad Pro running MacOS - same designs. Only that it will have more RAM and more speed for MacOS.
It will absolutely not nee an iPad Pro running macOS. It will be a MacBook Pro, a notebook computer, running macOS. It will definitely have more RAM than an iPad Pro, as we've seen with the developer's transition kit, but hopefully it will be LPDDR4 since they don't have to wait for Intel to get with the program.
That's not the point. My point is that the new MacBook Pro will look like iPad Pro with keyboard. There is a limit to how much you can cram a camera inside a thin display and considering that a camera has not improved whatsoever due to depth limitations in the past decade, it's inevitable that it will have an iPad Pro form factor so it will be able put a better camera on screen and the keyboard is just the same kind you'd get with current iPad Pro Smart Keyboard.
It just seems like a natural evolution. I have been saying this since iPad Pro with Smart Keyboard came out. I just know Apple is going to make MacBook Pros look like them running MacOS on ARM. It will at least finally have a real advantage.
The switch to ARM may mean that Mac is willing to give up workstation crowd too. (Because, er, making workstations will mean that Apple CAN'T put the same chips in workstations that they put in iPhones, ok? There are power/heating/expense constraints that smartphones have to work within. Make custom Apple Silicon to run in workstations? Yeah ... that's a worthwhile expense for the 250-500k Mac Pros that they sell a year. Not to mention it would drive up the cost.)
The purpose of Mac switching to ARM may well to increase convergence with iPad and iPhone users. Not to match Intel i9s and Xeons on computing power.
Why would the thermal constraints of a mobile device dictate the design of a SoC destined for a desktop Mac? Why would you think they'd be using the same processors in both phones and workstations to begin with? You seem to be operating under some assumptions which are hobbling your ability to picture Apple designing chips that are competitive with the higher end Intel chips we've been enjoying. I've seen no evidence to support this, and the fact they intend to complete the transition by the end of next year makes me think they've already got the high end figured out. Mac Pro might be last, but I certainly don't think they spent the years they did on that platform to release it once with Xeons and ditch it, and I certainly don't expect them to continue to release Intel Macs after next year.
The "increase convergence with iPad and iPhone users" thing is, what, regarding cross compatibility with software? 99% of consumers won't know or care anything about any of this. The chip is irrelevant to them.
Things are going to get more expensive as Apple squeezes its customers through software - and will justify higher hardware prices soon after. Apple user's already pay 30% more for everything - software, ringtones, in-game purchases, subscriptions, books, hardware, cables, hotel rooms, you name it... Once Apple has full control over its users - $700 coasters are going to look like a deal.
I am gonna bet that it will be just iPad Pro running MacOS - same designs. Only that it will have more RAM and more speed for MacOS.
It will absolutely not nee an iPad Pro running macOS. It will be a MacBook Pro, a notebook computer, running macOS. It will definitely have more RAM than an iPad Pro, as we've seen with the developer's transition kit, but hopefully it will be LPDDR4 since they don't have to wait for Intel to get with the program.
That's not the point. My point is that the new MacBook Pro will look like iPad Pro with keyboard. There is a limit to how much you can cram a camera inside a thin display and considering that a camera has not improved whatsoever due to depth limitations in the past decade, it's inevitable that it will have an iPad Pro form factor so it will be able put a better camera on screen and the keyboard is just the same kind you'd get with current iPad Pro Smart Keyboard.
It just seems like a natural evolution. I have been saying this since iPad Pro with Smart Keyboard came out. I just know Apple is going to make MacBook Pros look like them running MacOS on ARM. It will at least finally have a real advantage.
No way. First off, the idea that the FaceTime camera would drive such a massively fucked up design decision like making top-heavy iPad Pro laptops is absurd. Why would they move the guts of the Mac into the display just to accommodate more depth for the camera? That's ridiculous. Not to mention the reduction in battery capacity, thermal envelope for faster chips, trackpads, sound, uh...basically everything that makes a Mac a Mac.
Possibility of macOS on an iPad Pro? Definitely. MacBooks turning into iPads with Smart Cover style keyboards? Not a chance.
I am gonna bet that it will be just iPad Pro running MacOS - same designs. Only that it will have more RAM and more speed for MacOS.
It will absolutely not nee an iPad Pro running macOS. It will be a MacBook Pro, a notebook computer, running macOS. It will definitely have more RAM than an iPad Pro, as we've seen with the developer's transition kit, but hopefully it will be LPDDR4 since they don't have to wait for Intel to get with the program.
That's not the point. My point is that the new MacBook Pro will look like iPad Pro with keyboard. There is a limit to how much you can cram a camera inside a thin display and considering that a camera has not improved whatsoever due to depth limitations in the past decade, it's inevitable that it will have an iPad Pro form factor so it will be able put a better camera on screen and the keyboard is just the same kind you'd get with current iPad Pro Smart Keyboard.
It just seems like a natural evolution. I have been saying this since iPad Pro with Smart Keyboard came out. I just know Apple is going to make MacBook Pros look like them running MacOS on ARM. It will at least finally have a real advantage.
No way. First off, the idea that the FaceTime camera would drive such a massively fucked up design decision like making top-heavy iPad Pro laptops is absurd. Why would they move the guts of the Mac into the display just to accommodate more depth for the camera? That's ridiculous. Not to mention the reduction in battery capacity, thermal envelope for faster chips, trackpads, sound, uh...basically everything that makes a Mac a Mac.
Possibility of macOS on an iPad Pro? Definitely. MacBooks turning into iPads with Smart Cover style keyboards? Not a chance.
Actually he’s right - it already does. Have you seen a picture of a 12” iPad Pro with a Brydge keyboard attached? It looks like a MacBook Pro!
It will be interesting to see if or how Apple unifies the Mac and iPad through things like touchscreens, on a Mac, and keyboards on iPads. Since both devices will be using the same CPU and other components will the major differences be software? Allowing Apple Silicon Macs to run iOS apps makes sense, but will iOS eventually be able to run MacOS apps? Will it even matter when the same applications largely run on the same platform. A lot of people ridiculed Microsoft for adding touch/pen capabilities to Windows, but at least they don’t have the cost of supporting both a tablet and PC operating system. Maybe Apple has a master plan for all this, but if they have yet to articulate a long term platform vision. Makes sense that Apple Silicon will show up in platforms like MacBook Air first since it’s a light, thin Consumer ultrabook...
I am gonna bet that it will be just iPad Pro running MacOS - same designs. Only that it will have more RAM and more speed for MacOS.
It will absolutely not nee an iPad Pro running macOS. It will be a MacBook Pro, a notebook computer, running macOS. It will definitely have more RAM than an iPad Pro, as we've seen with the developer's transition kit, but hopefully it will be LPDDR4 since they don't have to wait for Intel to get with the program.
That's not the point. My point is that the new MacBook Pro will look like iPad Pro with keyboard. There is a limit to how much you can cram a camera inside a thin display and considering that a camera has not improved whatsoever due to depth limitations in the past decade, it's inevitable that it will have an iPad Pro form factor so it will be able put a better camera on screen and the keyboard is just the same kind you'd get with current iPad Pro Smart Keyboard.
It just seems like a natural evolution. I have been saying this since iPad Pro with Smart Keyboard came out. I just know Apple is going to make MacBook Pros look like them running MacOS on ARM. It will at least finally have a real advantage.
No way. First off, the idea that the FaceTime camera would drive such a massively fucked up design decision like making top-heavy iPad Pro laptops is absurd. Why would they move the guts of the Mac into the display just to accommodate more depth for the camera? That's ridiculous. Not to mention the reduction in battery capacity, thermal envelope for faster chips, trackpads, sound, uh...basically everything that makes a Mac a Mac.
Possibility of macOS on an iPad Pro? Definitely. MacBooks turning into iPads with Smart Cover style keyboards? Not a chance.
Actually he’s right - it already does. Have you seen a picture of a 12” iPad Pro with a Brydge keyboard attached? It looks like a MacBook Pro!
What a keyboard case looks like is completely meaningless to the discussion. You completely ignored everything I pointed out.
Things are going to get more expensive as Apple squeezes its customers through software - and will justify higher hardware prices soon after. Apple user's already pay 30% more for everything - software, ringtones, in-game purchases, subscriptions, books, hardware, cables, hotel rooms, you name it... Once Apple has full control over its users - $700 coasters are going to look like a deal.
Put down the crack pipe, you've had quite enough.
You must be pretty new to the world - definitely Apple's history.
Things are going to get more expensive as Apple squeezes its customers through software - and will justify higher hardware prices soon after. Apple user's already pay 30% more for everything - software, ringtones, in-game purchases, subscriptions, books, hardware, cables, hotel rooms, you name it... Once Apple has full control over its users - $700 coasters are going to look like a deal.
Put down the crack pipe, you've had quite enough.
You must be pretty new to the world - definitely Apple's history.
So what you're saying is that no other store (Google Play, Amazon, Xbox whatever) takes a 30% cut?
It will be interesting to see if or how Apple unifies the Mac and iPad through things like touchscreens, on a Mac, and keyboards on iPads. Since both devices will be using the same CPU and other components will the major differences be software?
No, the major difference will be the power of the processor, its consumption, the form factor of the device, and its intended use. The problem with touchscreens on laptops it that they're uncomfortable to use for extended periods of time, which is why touch screen laptops still come with trackpads. And would probably explain why I've never seen anyone with a touch screen laptop actually touch the screen (why bother when the trackpad is nearer your fingers?).
What I suspect Apple will do (and their recent patent activity certainly points to an interest in this) is replace the keyboard and trackpad with a second screen that can be tuned to the functionality of the app you're currently using.
Allowing Apple Silicon Macs to run iOS apps makes sense, but will iOS eventually be able to run MacOS apps?
Doubtful, because Mac apps often require system resources (an accessible file system for one thing) that are not available on the iPad. But now they have complete control of the architecture, I'm sure its something they're looking at. (Didn't AI have an article on this a while back?)
A lot of people ridiculed Microsoft for adding touch/pen capabilities to Windows, but at least they don’t have the cost of supporting both a tablet and PC operating system.
But not having the cost of supporting two operating systems isn't really an advantage if it compromises your product. If that were the case then having MacOS running on AppleTV would be a great idea. I think we can safely say, it isn't.
With all due respect, it is less "knowledge of business, supply chain and vertical integration" that gets bandied about by journalism graduates who have never worked a day in engineering, manufacturing, product management etc. than it is Apple boosterism. Simply put: do you folks honestly think that Apple will be the first company to make their own CPUs? Because if you want vertical integration, Samsung has that in spades. They make the CPUs, RAM, SSD, screens and cameras! And unlike Apple, Samsung actually MAKES these components in their own factories and foundries where "Apple Silicon" is actually made by TSMC (and was previously by Samsung). And before Samsung, IBM and Motorola used to make their own components too.
What makes this statement so hilarious (aside from obvious factual errors) is that it's very similar to a statement you were schooled on several months ago. Let's revisit it shall we?
[…] Seriously, I wish people will give this up. It isn't their area of expertise. CPU and SOC design isn't easy. If it was, everyone would do it. Instead there are only two CPU companies on the planet and have been for decades - Intel and AMD both of whom use the same base x86 design - and the number of SOC companies isn't that much bigger (and again they all start from the same base ARM Holdings design). Sun Microsystems, Motorola and IBM, who were all making CPUs or SOCs as recently as the 1990s? RIP. Also there is this whole "application compatibility" thing. Macs run on x86 just like Windows and Linux computers. Result: while you have to tweak for the different OSes and such, all "PC" applications are developed for the x86 instruction set. If Apple wants to use their ARM SOCs for MacBooks or develop a wholly new SOC/CPU, all those developers would have to port, rewrite or create from scratch their x86 applications or Apple would have to emulate x86 (more on this later).
That was you, wasn't it?
The reason I bring this up is because you're displaying the same lack of knowledge that led you to believe that Apple didn't have the nonce to create its own chips (when it already had been doing this for years) and that "all those developers would have to port, rewrite or create from scratch their x86 applications."
Okay, let's begin:
Simply put: do you folks honestly think that Apple will be the first company to make their own CPUs? Because if you want vertical integration, Samsung has that in spades. They make the CPUs, RAM, SSD, screens and cameras! And unlike Apple, Samsung actually MAKES these components in their own factories and foundries where "Apple Silicon" is actually made by TSMC (and was previously by Samsung). And before Samsung, IBM and Motorola used to make their own components too.
I see we've gone from Apple will never come out with their own chips to do you folks honestly believe Apple will be the first company to make their own CPUs? –which no one actually said.
That's quite a switcharound, but moving on …
Because if you want vertical integration, Samsung has that in spades. They make the CPUs, RAM, SSD, screens and cameras! And unlike Apple, Samsung actually MAKES these components in their own factories and foundries
Yeesss, you see what you've done here is mistake "vertical integration" with "manufacturing parts". Samsung doesn't have vertical integration because they're missing one of the key components: the operating system. The main reason Apple is doing this is so they can optimise the how the system architecture interacts with the OS. Samsung can't do that because they're using someone else's operating system running over someone else's chip design, executing apps running on someone else's programming language optimised for someone else's virtual machine. Apple doesn't do manufacturing because there's no money in it for them. They'd be stuck with manufacturing facilitates that they would need to retool every time they changed product designs.
Having said that though, Apple does spend billions on manufacturing processes and robotics. Many of the factories used for assembly are using automated machinery owned by Apple. They also are very proud of the robots they use to strip and recycle their products which allows them to reuse materials for new products.
We get it: iOS is faster than Android and Apple Silicon is faster than Qualcomm (and Exynos, MediaTek and Kirin). But that doesn't translate everywhere. Allow me to say that I have long been a fan of RISC, which ARM is a subset of. I remember when Sun SPARC and Motorola 68xxx UNIX workstations and servers could crush anything that Wintel was capable of. I have also been keeping up with ARM-based servers, which some quarters have been hyping for years. Linus Torvalds claims that Mac switching to ARM will be the catalyst for ARM-based servers really taking off.
At this point, it's worth noting that Apple's architecture doesn't use the ARM reference designs, only the instruction set. This is an architecture built from scratch, so there is little point comparing what they're doing (trying to do) with existing ARM reference chips. The question is, will Apple think there is enough money to be made by taking their chip design knowledge and applying it to the cloud server market?
But please know this: not even Apple claims that their 5 nm A14 chip will outperform the 10 nm Intel i9 or even the i7. They merely claimed that the iPad Pro beat an unspecified MacBook (i9? i7? even i5?) on some internal tests. So keep these 3 things in mind.
Well first, you keep one thing in mind: the iPad Pro already outperforms 80% of the desktop PCs in use today, which is weird considering it's running a chip that isn't optimised for desktop use and is already quite old.
1. The MacBook Pro runs tons of heavy duty performance software that the iPad Pro can't run at all rendering that test worthless for people with serious computing needs. 2. The i9 isn't even Intel's most powerful chip. The Xeon, which goes in the Mac Pro, is. 3. Intel won't be at 10 nm forever. AMD is at 7 nm, after all, and is expected to reach 5 nm as early as 2021.
Okay, I don't know how many times Apple has to say this before it sinks in:
The architecture used in the current test hardware is not the one that will be used in the first shipping devices. Apple has given folk a modified iPad Pro in a Apple Mini case. This does not represent the ability and performance of the final design. It doesn't even have Thunderbolt, which we know Apple will be supporting going forward.
What you aren't considering: "Pro" users whose computing needs tend to the ultra-high performance scale make up a tiny percentage of Mac sales. We already know that Mac is willing to give up the similarly tiny percentage of Windows (bootcamp and virtualization) users. The switch to ARM may mean that Mac is willing to give up workstation crowd too. (Because, er, making workstations will mean that Apple CAN'T put the same chips in workstations that they put in iPhones, ok? There are power/heating/expense constraints that smartphones have to work within. Make custom Apple Silicon to run in workstations? Yeah ... that's a worthwhile expense for the 250-500k Mac Pros that they sell a year. Not to mention it would drive up the cost.)
Again, your logic fails at the first hurdle:
(Because, er, making workstations will mean that Apple CAN'T put the same chips in workstations that they put in iPhones, ok? There are power/heating/expense constraints that smartphones have to work within. Make custom Apple Silicon to run in workstations? Yeah ... that's a worthwhile expense for the 250-500k Mac Pros that they sell a year. Not to mention it would drive up the cost.)
Jesus Henry Christ on an ecoScooter … :-(
Okay, let's try again:
Apple is not using the same chips in the phones and iPads that they're going to use in the desktops. They are designing a new line of chips optimised for desktops and workstations. They are not going to drop an iPhone chip into a desktop.
The purpose of Mac switching to ARM may well to increase convergence with iPad and iPhone users. Not to match Intel i9s and Xeons on computing power.
Well, given your track record so far, I think I'll just wait and see. Apple's obsession with AR means they're going to need so pretty hefty architectures going forward.
So I wonder at what point Apple decided that they were going to bin Intel?
I thought that perhaps Intel had always been a stop-gap, but a friend of mine thinks that it was when they couldn't fix the thermal problems with the Trashcan Mac Pro.
HP needing to pay for Windows where Apple gets their OS for free,
the MBA literally costs twice as much.
Operating systems are the most complex and advanced in the field of software engineering. HP's and Dell's Windows license fees are far less than Apple's cost of developing the macOS. On top of that, Apple also designs and engineers many of the ICs in Macs. The fact that Apple has a lower per unit cost of software (not zero, it must still pay for many third party licenses), doesn't mean its OS is free.
HP needing to pay for Windows where Apple gets their OS for free,
the MBA literally costs twice as much.
Operating systems are the most complex and advanced in the field of software engineering. HP's and Dell's Windows license fees are far less than Apple's cost of developing the macOS. On top of that, Apple also designs and engineers many of the ICs in Macs. The fact that Apple has a lower per unit cost of software (not zero, it must still pay for many third party licenses), doesn't mean its OS is free.
An excellent point, not to mention that Apple also creates and maintains apps such as iWork and iMovie.
With all due respect, it is less "knowledge of business, supply chain and vertical integration" that gets bandied about by journalism graduates who have never worked a day in engineering, manufacturing, product management etc. than it is Apple boosterism. Simply put: do you folks honestly think that Apple will be the first company to make their own CPUs? Because if you want vertical integration, Samsung has that in spades. They make the CPUs, RAM, SSD, screens and cameras! And unlike Apple, Samsung actually MAKES these components in their own factories and foundries where "Apple Silicon" is actually made by TSMC (and was previously by Samsung). And before Samsung, IBM and Motorola used to make their own components too.
What makes this statement so hilarious (aside from obvious factual errors) is that it's very similar to a statement you were schooled on several months ago. Let's revisit it shall we?
[…] Seriously, I wish people will give this up. It isn't their area of expertise. CPU and SOC design isn't easy. If it was, everyone would do it. Instead there are only two CPU companies on the planet and have been for decades - Intel and AMD both of whom use the same base x86 design - and the number of SOC companies isn't that much bigger (and again they all start from the same base ARM Holdings design). Sun Microsystems, Motorola and IBM, who were all making CPUs or SOCs as recently as the 1990s? RIP. Also there is this whole "application compatibility" thing. Macs run on x86 just like Windows and Linux computers. Result: while you have to tweak for the different OSes and such, all "PC" applications are developed for the x86 instruction set. If Apple wants to use their ARM SOCs for MacBooks or develop a wholly new SOC/CPU, all those developers would have to port, rewrite or create from scratch their x86 applications or Apple would have to emulate x86 (more on this later).
That was you, wasn't it?
The reason I bring this up is because you're displaying the same lack of knowledge that led you to believe that Apple didn't have the nonce to create its own chips (when it already had been doing this for years) and that "all those developers would have to port, rewrite or create from scratch their x86 applications."
Okay, let's begin:
Simply put: do you folks honestly think that Apple will be the first company to make their own CPUs? Because if you want vertical integration, Samsung has that in spades. They make the CPUs, RAM, SSD, screens and cameras! And unlike Apple, Samsung actually MAKES these components in their own factories and foundries where "Apple Silicon" is actually made by TSMC (and was previously by Samsung). And before Samsung, IBM and Motorola used to make their own components too.
I see we've gone from Apple will never come out with their own chips to do you folks honestly believe Apple will be the first company to make their own CPUs? –which no one actually said.
That's quite a switcharound, but moving on …
Because if you want vertical integration, Samsung has that in spades. They make the CPUs, RAM, SSD, screens and cameras! And unlike Apple, Samsung actually MAKES these components in their own factories and foundries
Yeesss, you see what you've done here is mistake "vertical integration" with "manufacturing parts". Samsung doesn't have vertical integration because they're missing one of the key components: the operating system. The main reason Apple is doing this is so they can optimise the how the system architecture interacts with the OS. Samsung can't do that because they're using someone else's operating system running over someone else's chip design, executing apps running on someone else's programming language optimised for someone else's virtual machine. Apple doesn't do manufacturing because there's no money in it for them. They'd be stuck with manufacturing facilitates that they would need to retool every time they changed product designs.
Having said that though, Apple does spend billions on manufacturing processes and robotics. Many of the factories used for assembly are using automated machinery owned by Apple. They also are very proud of the robots they use to strip and recycle their products which allows them to reuse materials for new products.
We get it: iOS is faster than Android and Apple Silicon is faster than Qualcomm (and Exynos, MediaTek and Kirin). But that doesn't translate everywhere. Allow me to say that I have long been a fan of RISC, which ARM is a subset of. I remember when Sun SPARC and Motorola 68xxx UNIX workstations and servers could crush anything that Wintel was capable of. I have also been keeping up with ARM-based servers, which some quarters have been hyping for years. Linus Torvalds claims that Mac switching to ARM will be the catalyst for ARM-based servers really taking off.
At this point, it's worth noting that Apple's architecture doesn't use the ARM reference designs, only the instruction set. This is an architecture built from scratch, so there is little point comparing what they're doing (trying to do) with existing ARM reference chips. The question is, will Apple think there is enough money to be made by taking their chip design knowledge and applying it to the cloud server market?
But please know this: not even Apple claims that their 5 nm A14 chip will outperform the 10 nm Intel i9 or even the i7. They merely claimed that the iPad Pro beat an unspecified MacBook (i9? i7? even i5?) on some internal tests. So keep these 3 things in mind.
Well first, you keep one thing in mind: the iPad Pro already outperforms 80% of the desktop PCs in use today, which is weird considering it's running a chip that isn't optimised for desktop use and is already quite old.
1. The MacBook Pro runs tons of heavy duty performance software that the iPad Pro can't run at all rendering that test worthless for people with serious computing needs. 2. The i9 isn't even Intel's most powerful chip. The Xeon, which goes in the Mac Pro, is. 3. Intel won't be at 10 nm forever. AMD is at 7 nm, after all, and is expected to reach 5 nm as early as 2021.
Okay, I don't know how many times Apple has to say this before it sinks in:
The architecture used in the current test hardware is not the one that will be used in the first shipping devices. Apple has given folk a modified iPad Pro in a Apple Mini case. This does not represent the ability and performance of the final design. It doesn't even have Thunderbolt, which we know Apple will be supporting going forward.
What you aren't considering: "Pro" users whose computing needs tend to the ultra-high performance scale make up a tiny percentage of Mac sales. We already know that Mac is willing to give up the similarly tiny percentage of Windows (bootcamp and virtualization) users. The switch to ARM may mean that Mac is willing to give up workstation crowd too. (Because, er, making workstations will mean that Apple CAN'T put the same chips in workstations that they put in iPhones, ok? There are power/heating/expense constraints that smartphones have to work within. Make custom Apple Silicon to run in workstations? Yeah ... that's a worthwhile expense for the 250-500k Mac Pros that they sell a year. Not to mention it would drive up the cost.)
Again, your logic fails at the first hurdle:
(Because, er, making workstations will mean that Apple CAN'T put the same chips in workstations that they put in iPhones, ok? There are power/heating/expense constraints that smartphones have to work within. Make custom Apple Silicon to run in workstations? Yeah ... that's a worthwhile expense for the 250-500k Mac Pros that they sell a year. Not to mention it would drive up the cost.)
Jesus Henry Christ on an ecoScooter … :-(
Okay, let's try again:
Apple is not using the same chips in the phones and iPads that they're going to use in the desktops. They are designing a new line of chips optimised for desktops and workstations. They are not going to drop an iPhone chip into a desktop.
The purpose of Mac switching to ARM may well to increase convergence with iPad and iPhone users. Not to match Intel i9s and Xeons on computing power.
Well, given your track record so far, I think I'll just wait and see. Apple's obsession with AR means they're going to need so pretty hefty architectures going forward.
Excellent post. It's interesting how some can't see the writing on the wall… even after it's been spelled out by Apple themselves.
I will be incredibly surprised if Apple lowers prices on any Mac as a result of this transition, and IF they actually do, it will be a short-lived reduction to inspire transitional purchases.
I quite disagree. Apple, and Tim Cook in particular, are sticklers about profit margins. They pick some number (usually 32%) and price accordingly. .....
Do you have a reputable source for that assertion? I've heard speculation about such things but never anything actually informed.
And, in actuality, the only ones who actually know the real margins are Apple cost accountants and execs. Everybody else is guessing. And their guesses usually reveal a fundamental lack of understanding of cost accounting and margins.
Apple states product line margins in their quarterly financial statements, so its not like anyone is guessing.
The switch to ARM may mean that Mac is willing to give up workstation crowd too. (Because, er, making workstations will mean that Apple CAN'T put the same chips in workstations that they put in iPhones, ok? There are power/heating/expense constraints that smartphones have to work within. Make custom Apple Silicon to run in workstations? Yeah ... that's a worthwhile expense for the 250-500k Mac Pros that they sell a year. Not to mention it would drive up the cost.)
The purpose of Mac switching to ARM may well to increase convergence with iPad and iPhone users. Not to match Intel i9s and Xeons on computing power.
Why would the thermal constraints of a mobile device dictate the design of a SoC destined for a desktop Mac? Why would you think they'd be using the same processors in both phones and workstations to begin with? You seem to be operating under some assumptions which are hobbling your ability to picture Apple designing chips that are competitive with the higher end Intel chips we've been enjoying. I've seen no evidence to support this, and the fact they intend to complete the transition by the end of next year makes me think they've already got the high end figured out. Mac Pro might be last, but I certainly don't think they spent the years they did on that platform to release it once with Xeons and ditch it, and I certainly don't expect them to continue to release Intel Macs after next year.
The "increase convergence with iPad and iPhone users" thing is, what, regarding cross compatibility with software? 99% of consumers won't know or care anything about any of this. The chip is irrelevant to them.
I think you read that backwards. Linuxplatform is saying the Mac Pro sales volume may not justify the work involved in building a chip only for it. Chips above ~80W TDP wouldn't be suitable for anything but a Mac Pro (and maybe iMac Pro if they keep that around). None of the other current designs can dissipate that much heat well enough.
Of course, it ignores multi-socket systems. There have been two-socket PowerMacs and Mac Pros before, and I suspect there will be again with the switch to ARM. iMac with a single 65W processor, Mac Pro with 2 to 6. It would take a little extra engineering on the inter-processor bus, but that bus is a slower-moving target, so the investment has more time to pay itself off.
I am gonna bet that it will be just iPad Pro running MacOS - same designs. Only that it will have more RAM and more speed for MacOS.
It will absolutely not nee an iPad Pro running macOS. It will be a MacBook Pro, a notebook computer, running macOS. It will definitely have more RAM than an iPad Pro, as we've seen with the developer's transition kit, but hopefully it will be LPDDR4 since they don't have to wait for Intel to get with the program.
That's not the point. My point is that the new MacBook Pro will look like iPad Pro with keyboard. There is a limit to how much you can cram a camera inside a thin display and considering that a camera has not improved whatsoever due to depth limitations in the past decade, it's inevitable that it will have an iPad Pro form factor so it will be able put a better camera on screen and the keyboard is just the same kind you'd get with current iPad Pro Smart Keyboard.
It just seems like a natural evolution. I have been saying this since iPad Pro with Smart Keyboard came out. I just know Apple is going to make MacBook Pros look like them running MacOS on ARM. It will at least finally have a real advantage.
No way. First off, the idea that the FaceTime camera would drive such a massively fucked up design decision like making top-heavy iPad Pro laptops is absurd. Why would they move the guts of the Mac into the display just to accommodate more depth for the camera? That's ridiculous. Not to mention the reduction in battery capacity, thermal envelope for faster chips, trackpads, sound, uh...basically everything that makes a Mac a Mac.
Possibility of macOS on an iPad Pro? Definitely. MacBooks turning into iPads with Smart Cover style keyboards? Not a chance.
Actually he’s right - it already does. Have you seen a picture of a 12” iPad Pro with a Brydge keyboard attached? It looks like a MacBook Pro!
What a keyboard case looks like is completely meaningless to the discussion. You completely ignored everything I pointed out.
And you completely ignored the fact that I was responding so what @netrox said, but whatever.
Comments
Apple user's already pay 30% more for everything - software, ringtones, in-game purchases, subscriptions, books, hardware, cables, hotel rooms, you name it...
Once Apple has full control over its users - $700 coasters are going to look like a deal.
It just seems like a natural evolution. I have been saying this since iPad Pro with Smart Keyboard came out. I just know Apple is going to make MacBook Pros look like them running MacOS on ARM. It will at least finally have a real advantage.
The "increase convergence with iPad and iPhone users" thing is, what, regarding cross compatibility with software? 99% of consumers won't know or care anything about any of this. The chip is irrelevant to them.
No way. First off, the idea that the FaceTime camera would drive such a massively fucked up design decision like making top-heavy iPad Pro laptops is absurd. Why would they move the guts of the Mac into the display just to accommodate more depth for the camera? That's ridiculous. Not to mention the reduction in battery capacity, thermal envelope for faster chips, trackpads, sound, uh...basically everything that makes a Mac a Mac.
Possibility of macOS on an iPad Pro? Definitely. MacBooks turning into iPads with Smart Cover style keyboards? Not a chance.
No, the major difference will be the power of the processor, its consumption, the form factor of the device, and its intended use. The problem with touchscreens on laptops it that they're uncomfortable to use for extended periods of time, which is why touch screen laptops still come with trackpads. And would probably explain why I've never seen anyone with a touch screen laptop actually touch the screen (why bother when the trackpad is nearer your fingers?).
What I suspect Apple will do (and their recent patent activity certainly points to an interest in this) is replace the keyboard and trackpad with a second screen that can be tuned to the functionality of the app you're currently using.
Doubtful, because Mac apps often require system resources (an accessible file system for one thing) that are not available on the iPad. But now they have complete control of the architecture, I'm sure its something they're looking at. (Didn't AI have an article on this a while back?)
But not having the cost of supporting two operating systems isn't really an advantage if it compromises your product. If that were the case then having MacOS running on AppleTV would be a great idea. I think we can safely say, it isn't.
What makes this statement so hilarious (aside from obvious factual errors) is that it's very similar to a statement you were schooled on several months ago. Let's revisit it shall we?
https://forums.appleinsider.com/discussion/comment/3214174/#Comment_3214174
That was you, wasn't it?
The reason I bring this up is because you're displaying the same lack of knowledge that led you to believe that Apple didn't have the nonce to create its own chips (when it already had been doing this for years) and that "all those developers would have to port, rewrite or create from scratch their x86 applications."
Okay, let's begin:
I see we've gone from Apple will never come out with their own chips to do you folks honestly believe Apple will be the first company to make their own CPUs? – which no one actually said.
That's quite a switcharound, but moving on …
Yeesss, you see what you've done here is mistake "vertical integration" with "manufacturing parts". Samsung doesn't have vertical integration because they're missing one of the key components: the operating system. The main reason Apple is doing this is so they can optimise the how the system architecture interacts with the OS. Samsung can't do that because they're using someone else's operating system running over someone else's chip design, executing apps running on someone else's programming language optimised for someone else's virtual machine.
Apple doesn't do manufacturing because there's no money in it for them. They'd be stuck with manufacturing facilitates that they would need to retool every time they changed product designs.
Having said that though, Apple does spend billions on manufacturing processes and robotics. Many of the factories used for assembly are using automated machinery owned by Apple. They also are very proud of the robots they use to strip and recycle their products which allows them to reuse materials for new products.
At this point, it's worth noting that Apple's architecture doesn't use the ARM reference designs, only the instruction set. This is an architecture built from scratch, so there is little point comparing what they're doing (trying to do) with existing ARM reference chips. The question is, will Apple think there is enough money to be made by taking their chip design knowledge and applying it to the cloud server market?
Well first, you keep one thing in mind: the iPad Pro already outperforms 80% of the desktop PCs in use today, which is weird considering it's running a chip that isn't optimised for desktop use and is already quite old.
https://www.tomsguide.com/us/new-ipad-pro-benchmarks,news-28453.html
Okay, carry on:
Okay, I don't know how many times Apple has to say this before it sinks in:
The architecture used in the current test hardware is not the one that will be used in the first shipping devices. Apple has given folk a modified iPad Pro in a Apple Mini case. This does not represent the ability and performance of the final design. It doesn't even have Thunderbolt, which we know Apple will be supporting going forward.
Again, your logic fails at the first hurdle:
Jesus Henry Christ on an ecoScooter … :-(
Okay, let's try again:
Apple is not using the same chips in the phones and iPads that they're going to use in the desktops. They are designing a new line of chips optimised for desktops and workstations. They are not going to drop an iPhone chip into a desktop.
Well, given your track record so far, I think I'll just wait and see. Apple's obsession with AR means they're going to need so pretty hefty architectures going forward.
I thought that perhaps Intel had always been a stop-gap, but a friend of mine thinks that it was when they couldn't fix the thermal problems with the Trashcan Mac Pro.
Of course, it ignores multi-socket systems. There have been two-socket PowerMacs and Mac Pros before, and I suspect there will be again with the switch to ARM. iMac with a single 65W processor, Mac Pro with 2 to 6. It would take a little extra engineering on the inter-processor bus, but that bus is a slower-moving target, so the investment has more time to pay itself off.