Apple mulling transition away from Intel chips for Macs

1246

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 119
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member
    I understand that some people are trying to make a logical step for Apple based upon how their "A"series of chips have evolved. But those chips are intended to compete in the ARM space. They aren't intended to compete in the x86 space, unless it's against the low power version of the Atom.

    Once we get to a mobile i3, we're lost. Move to the i5, and it's hopeless. Pointless to even think about how it would perform against the i7. Even if Apple doubles the performance next year, it will start to level out in a couple of years or so. Meanwhile, Intel is still evolving their own chips. And what about discreet GPU's? We have to take that into account as well.
  • Reply 62 of 119


    Don't ask me how running Office on Apple hardware is better, ask all those who say Apple is doomed without that capability. I haven't used Office in ten years. I'm simply saying that Apple is capable of addressing that issue, if it is an issue, and many claim it is.

  • Reply 63 of 119
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member
    boredumb wrote: »
    To some buyers, I believe they do.  
    Apple didn't make enterprise inroads these last few years
    solely because of the iPod, iPhone, or iPad. 
    There's a synergy (don't you love vague buzzwords?  never mind, I know you do).
    And when you are working with a small minority of desktop users already...

    Actually, Apple's sales in the enterprise the past few years has been tremendous. Last year, with an 8% decline in enterprise spending on Windows machines, Apple sales in that space rose by 56%. The two years before had an equal rise in sales.

    So while Apple hasn't made major moves towards the enterprise, sales have grown substantially. And Cook is making those moves. Apple has added significantly to an enterprise sales force. And even with SJ still there, they had been working with Unisys, CDW and other larger integrators.
  • Reply 64 of 119
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member
    mstone wrote: »
    I've found iWork very usable for routine Office documents, however once they get a little complicated like animation in Keynote, tables coming from Word and various combined functions in Excel, it starts to lose its compatibility but this only comes up every once in a while and depends on which direction you are going either Mac-> Win or Win-> Mac, whether or not it is important. I view iPads as sort of the quick and dirty tool when it comes to Office documents so most of the time it would be just fine since it is not really a power user device anyway.

    Lets remember the old rule: 80% of Office users use 20% of the features. If Apple would only update iWork substantially, they could get more of that market. It's been said that Apple didn't want to antagonize Microsoft over this, and possibly that's true. But I'm not sure that it matters now. And if the article about Apple and VMware is true, and it seems to be on good authority, then things could heat up.
  • Reply 65 of 119

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by melgross View Post





    If that's your assumption, then you have a lot to learn. We bandy about the term "OS X". But OS X is the entire OS, not just the core, which is in iOS. Take away the desktop, and you no longer have OS X. Take away the printing technology, the graphics technology and all the other things Apple left out because iOS devices don't need it, and you no longer have OS X. We have Darwin, for the most part, and that's just part of OS X.

    Then for iOS, Apple developed an entirely new UI, an entirely new printing tech, and entirely new graphics tech, etc.

    What do you think needs to happen here? Do you think Adobe, Microsoft, and thousands of other developers will again want to move to a new chip family? That would be a very difficult sell.

    As in most major moves, this is far more complex than you think it is.


    Core Audio, Core Animation, Core Image, Quartz, OpenGL, OpenCL, Grand Central Disptach all exist under iOS. Anyone who's developed using Cocoa needn't do much more than recompile. Just as Apple ran parallel development of OS X for PowerPC/X86, they're doing it for ARM. The differentiation of iOS/OS X is functional, not architectural. It's already been reported (take it with a grain of salt, but only a grain) that MacBook Air chassis have been tested running OS X on ARM.


     


    Of course it's far more complex than I think it is, so is Apple.

  • Reply 66 of 119
    Already jumped through the hoop for one transition. The next hoop will be to PCs that run the software I need. I'd have a hard time seeing professionals staying with Apple if they did this.
  • Reply 67 of 119
    clemynxclemynx Posts: 1,552member
    Few AAA games run on Mac already....
  • Reply 68 of 119
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member
    sockrolid wrote: »
    Um, no it's not "crazy talk."  But yeah, I should have made myself a little more clear.  I was talking at a lower level than you're probably thinking.  More in terms of textures and colors.  For an example of cross-platform UX confusion in a single app, take a look at Calendar on iOS and OS X.  Skeuomorphic torn paper and stitched leather on one, plain iOS Interface Builder elements on the other.  

    And for an example of radically different UX design in separate apps whose features overlap somewhat, take a look at the Calendar app and the Reminders app (on OS X and iOS.)  Calendar is straight vanilla IB on iOS and has skeuomorphic fakeness on OS X.  But Reminders is completely paved-over with relentless slate / gray on iOS and OS X.  It reminds me of the old brushed-aluminum days of OS X <span style="font-family:sans-serif;line-height:19px;">10.3</span>
    , when some apps had the brushed-aluminum look and others had the striped-iMac-plastic-bezel look.  (I do prefer the Reminders look and feel over the vanilla Calendar, BTW.)

    Crossing fingers and toes in anticipation of a stitched-leather-free Calendar app on both iOS and OS X. 

    I completely agree that iOS and OS X will never share a common UX architecture, and I should have made that clearer.  They can't, unless Apple makes the catastrophic mistake of adding multi-touch screens to Macs.  Fine for occasional-use kiosks.  Terrible for all-day productivity.  Just look up "gorilla arm" in Wikipedia.

    I don't believe that adding touch screens would be a mistake. I think they're trying to get the price down. Two touch monitors from Dell and HP show that prices are very high. I think one HP model is $1,500. It might be higher.

    Remember that Apple patented not one, but two sliding mounts for touch computers. Slide that screen down to a 10 degree angle close to the table, and it works great. I think Dell has a computer like that now, but it could be HP, or someone else.

    I frequently find myself reaching out with a finger to touch my wife's iMac screen, or my MacBook Pro's screen, and other's as well. I think "oops!". Then I wish I could have done it. We don't need to do it all the time. But often I'm standing, and it's a lot easier to do the screen then bend down to use the keyboard and trackball.

    Right now, I'm using my iPad in a weird mount I made for it out of the bottom of my friends old E-Mac. Even sitting, I'm typing away without much trouble. It's not as much of a problem as you think.
  • Reply 69 of 119
    gazoobeegazoobee Posts: 3,754member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SockRolid View Post


     


    Um, no it's not "crazy talk."  But yeah, I should have made myself a little more clear.  I was talking at a lower level than you're probably thinking.  More in terms of textures and colors.  For an example of cross-platform UX confusion in a single app, take a look at Calendar on iOS and OS X.  Skeuomorphic torn paper and stitched leather on one, plain iOS Interface Builder elements on the other.  


     


    And for an example of radically different UX design in separate apps whose features overlap somewhat, take a look at the Calendar app and the Reminders app (on OS X and iOS.)  Calendar is straight vanilla IB on iOS and has skeuomorphic fakeness on OS X.  But Reminders is completely paved-over with relentless slate / gray on iOS and OS X.  It reminds me of the old brushed-aluminum days of OS X 10.3, when some apps had the brushed-aluminum look and others had the striped-iMac-plastic-bezel look.  (I do prefer the Reminders look and feel over the vanilla Calendar, BTW.)


     


    Crossing fingers and toes in anticipation of a stitched-leather-free Calendar app on both iOS and OS X. 


     


    I completely agree that iOS and OS X will never share a common UX architecture, and I should have made that clearer.  They can't, unless Apple makes the catastrophic mistake of adding multi-touch screens to Macs.  Fine for occasional-use kiosks.  Terrible for all-day productivity.  Just look up "gorilla arm" in Wikipedia.



     


    I should have realised you weren't making the stupid argument I thought you were (although many will make that argument).  Apologies.  It seems like we basically agree. 

  • Reply 70 of 119
    pokepoke Posts: 506member


    I think it's more likely the laptop form factor will cease to exist.

  • Reply 71 of 119
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member
    bsimpsen wrote: »
    Core Audio, Core Animation, Core Image, Quartz, OpenGL, OpenCL, Grand Central Disptach all exist under iOS. Anyone who's developed using Cocoa needn't do much more than recompile. Just as Apple ran parallel development of OS X for PowerPC/X86, they're doing it for ARM. The differentiation of iOS/OS X is functional, not architectural. It's already been reported (take it with a grain of salt, but only a grain) that MacBook Air chassis have been tested running OS X on ARM.

    Of course it's far more complex than I think it is, so is Apple.

    I love it when people say "just recompile". Sure. So you have gone and found Apple technologies and listed them, wonderful. Have you ever programmed on a serious level? If you have, then you would know that "just recompile" is a very naive accessment of the problem for large amounts of code. You are talking about major work. Work that many developers may not want to do again.

    And please don't make statements that you can't support. Rumors don't mean that something is actually happening. Even if they are, it means little.
  • Reply 72 of 119
    drblankdrblank Posts: 3,385member


    This is silly.  Personally, I could give a rip what processor they use.   Then went to Intel because it was easy to allow them to run Windows on a Mac, plus they hit the 3G mark before IBM did with the PowerPC chip and Intel had better technology with regards to low power.  Plus it's good marketing and PC users feel more comfortable switching.


     


    But, if you look past the BS, if they can design ARM chips that can run faster, cooler, less power, and less expensive to design, and smaller foot print, why not?


     


    It's just a mater of how difficult is it for the apps to be written to support those chips?  Is it a complete re-write or is it a simply re-compile?  


     


    Either way, people should not make this into a big deal before anything is shown and announced.

  • Reply 73 of 119


    Originally Posted by boredumb View Post

    Apple didn't make enterprise inroads these last few years solely because of the iPod, iPhone, or iPad. 


     


    They sure didn't do it thanks to Boot Camp! No one is going to buy a Mac just to run Windows. They'll drop $400 on a piece of crap Windows desktop.

  • Reply 74 of 119
    bigpicsbigpics Posts: 1,397member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gustav View Post



    Remember, Apple was developing Into MacOS X years before it switched. Apple is keeping their options open.


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by astrosmash View Post


    When pigs fly.


     


    There's very little doubt they've worked on porting OS X to ARM.  Why wouldn't they?  I'm sure there are much more interesting projects they are working on that will never see the light of day.


     


    Maybe someday it will become slightly viable, sensible, and beneficial to transition Macs to ARM, but that day is so far off into the future that it's not even worth thinking about.



     


    Both of which logically implies they've also had iOS running on Atom in their labs (just as they had OS X running on x86 for years) - and could likely leverage Intel to create a custom version of same utilizing their own growing fabless chip design and expertise. 


     


    So the switch could be in the other direction.  Or they could even use both ARM and Atom on per which device would need which....


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post




    Really, it sort of is. Macs don't sell because of Boot Camp.



     


    Well, here's one customer they'd lose if I couldn't run Windows on a Mac....  ...there are a few Win Programs I absolutely need.  And if an iPad becomes my mobile device, I'll have no need for two "full" computers in my house.

  • Reply 75 of 119
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member
    drblank wrote: »
    This is silly.  Personally, I could give a rip what processor they use.   Then went to Intel because it was easy to allow them to run Windows on a Mac, plus they hit the 3G mark before IBM did with the PowerPC chip and Intel had better technology with regards to low power.  Plus it's good marketing and PC users feel more comfortable switching.

    But, if you look past the BS, if they can design ARM chips that can run faster, cooler, less power, and less expensive to design, and smaller foot print, why not?

    It's just a mater of how difficult is it for the apps to be written to support those chips?  Is it a complete re-write or is it a simply re-compile?  

    Either way, people should not make this into a big deal before anything is shown and announced.

    They also went to Intel because IBM couldn't deliver a mobile G5.

    We're back to computer power again. That what allows the software to advance.

    I didn't continue my last post to about this aspect of compiling, but it's more than a recompile.

    The question is what is being done. Are we trying to run OS X and all the software on an ARM device? Are we trying to port OS X software code to iOS? There are a lot of questions here. ARM doesn't support the same micro code, firmware, or even API's. while Apple has ported over many of their technologies, it's still a different, and much slower, chip. Running Photoshop? Want to run that on ARM? Prepare to wait! Same thing for any other major software. Performance simply won't be there.

    This is like saying that all Windows software would run on a netbook, as people were saying. Nu uh! Or the Surface Prp. Nope! In theory, it should, but not in actuality.
  • Reply 76 of 119

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by bsimpsen View Post


    Apple stated, at the introduction of the iPhone five years ago, that iOS is a slimmed down OS-X. A So OS X ALREADY runs directly on ARM, in more than 400 million devices. Applications written in Objective C under X-Code (which is used for both iOS and OS X development, already supporting both instruction sets) could be recompiled into ARM with the flick of a switch (once 64-bit arrives), so that takes care of the bulk of existing native OS X applications.


     


    When Apple purchased PA Semi, those folks had already fielded PowerPC compatible chips with better performance/power than anything produced by Motorola/IBM. Apple has enough money in the bank to engineer well beyond AMD's capabilities. TSMC has state of the art (if not state of Intel's art) factories, and single digit margins. This gives Apple the ability to apply the margin difference to make up for potential performance lag. If you can cut the price of an acre of silicon in half by removing Intel's margins, you can afford to ship twice the acreage, if you need it.



    Apple is never going to choose a chip that's twice as big as the competition. Smaller, thinner, lighter applies to the inside of the Mac just as much as the outside.

  • Reply 77 of 119

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Napoleon_PhoneApart View Post


     


    Oldsters? Please. I'm almost 57. Put your overly-broad paintbrush away.



    I'm 54, but I wasn't referring to chronological age. Every technology, no matter how revolutionary and elegant in the beginning matures into bloated dogma with most people convinced that's just the way it has to be. Apple is the only big manufacturer that repeatedly shows it is willing to sabotage its most successful products with what they believe is a better way. As long as feature size continues to shrink this is the only way we consumers will continue to benefit from the miracle of miniaturization. If no consumer product manufacturers are willing to periodically risk alienating their users then the surveillance state and the military will be the sole beneficiaries.

  • Reply 78 of 119
    cash907cash907 Posts: 893member
    Ugh, not this nonsense again.

    Not going to happen. The Mac platform exploded after adopting intel chips, plus we've already been through the headache of "legacy" apps once. Insert Batman slapping Robin, because that's what needs to happen anytime someone mentions this ridiculous rumor.
  • Reply 79 of 119
    Kolchak - in the timescales we're talking about, I'm guessing that cloud-based virtualization will eliminate a significant number of requirements for Bootcamp / Parallels. Not for everyone, but then lots of us have been dropped along the way in Apple's forward march.

    The interesting option is for Apple and Intel to carry on collaborating - Intel have the chip fab experience, are not Samsung. They have also had periodic attempts at the ARM market - and while it may be lower profit, can they afford to let their most profitable customer go??

    And of course, this may be the real value in Apple keeping an ARM build of Mac OS X going - it's a good negotiating position.
  • Reply 80 of 119

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


     


    They sure didn't do it thanks to Boot Camp! No one is going to buy a Mac just to run Windows. They'll drop $400 on a piece of crap Windows desktop.



    I think you underestimate the number of Mac users who occasionally need to run a Windows app. Boot Camp/Parallels/VM Ware/VirtualBox has allowed people who are tied to one or more Windows applications to switch and allowed Mac users to integrate into Windows dominated environments. I've been a Mac owner since the early 1990's, but I have a virtualized Windows installation for software that doesn't have a Mac equivalent.


     


    I used to have a cheap PC desktop, but got sick and tired of having two computers.


     


    Today Windows has a huge library of software, much of it unavailable for Mac. iOS also has a huge library of software, much of it also unavailable for the Mac.


     


    When most computing goes mobile the old formats will likely lose their relevance and new ones will take their place. A seamless product lineup from iPhone to desktop running the same software might look very appealing, but there are still some big bumps in the road.


     


    Almost all iOS and Android users also have a notebook/desktop computer of some sort and 95% of those run Windows.


     


    iOS is openly hostile to collaboration and iCloud is a syncing service not a sharing service. Apple's sandbox that locks documents away in a private silo only accessible to one app and one Apple ID is a troubling sign.


     


    Most of the world cannot afford to buy Apple hardware. Apple has always been happy to sell only to those who can afford to pay premium prices, but that means they have never been able to define the file formats or tools that the rest of the world uses.

Sign In or Register to comment.