Remember, this email below was only 8 months ago. Do you think he (and Schiller soon after) would say anything along the lines of this without having some sort of future plan for the mini? I sure don't.
Why don’t you? They announced a new professional computer nearly 2 years early (and counting). They care even less about the Mac Mini, so why not even just announce an update in a personal e-mail to someone? What do they care?
What is weird AF is your inability to discuss things that people say as opposed to what you want/think them to say despite being spelled out repeatedly.
Strawman. They CAN call it a Mac but it would result in the same confusion as the windows RT.
And the hardware wouldn’t be consistent across the lineup which was the case in prior Mac processor transitions.
Cost is the primary benefit of ARM. For the same workload Intel performance per watt as a system is on par
1) Oh, now you finally admit that Apple could name a machine running macOS on Mac HW a Mac. How magnanimous of you. You're right. They could name it MateBook X Pro OS if they wanted to and license it Avon for his exclusive use. Seems unlikely, but they could do it.
Hell, I've repeatedly stated on this forum that an ARM-based desktop or notebook from Apple could be a "Mac or Mac-like" but I don't recall you ever using that term. I even suggested that Apple could fork from the traditional Mac branding because the path for this Mac-like machine would have certain limitations, like no Boot Camp, no virtualization, a more refined OS subsystem that wouldn't let you see all system folders in Finder, and/or a requirement to use the App Store (i.e: no side-loading apps).
Even now with Extensions for Safari in Mojave requiring the App Store and better authentication this move to securing macOS is coming even more into light, and I first stated this potential shift back when Adobe Flash was still a commonly needed browser plug-in. Remember plug-ins?
2) I've seen nothing about Apple's operation that works like MS and Windows. Do you remember all the issues MS had with 64-bit version of Windows? Did you see anything like that from Apple's adoption to 64-bit? Of course not! It was a major undertaking but Apple being Apple worked to make it as seamless for users as possible instead of it being a completely separate OS that required separate apps. Even their move to 64-bit to the iPhone came years before anyone thought it was possible.
Now, years later, Apple has even more resources that make this better for developers and users, and we're seeing all the signs of Apple readying another transition as they deprecate code for macOS that isn't fully 64-bit. Could all their planning fail? Could they make some massive miscalculation that causes their demise? Sure, I guess so. I certainly can't rule it out, but I also wouldn't bet against Apple here.
3) HW has never been consistent. That's one of the biggest complaints we see around here. Even now with USB-C cables and peripherals being available all over for great prices and with clear benefits over having a dozen separate ports we still see people bitching about USB-C being too soon even though there's no reason to get a USB-C Mac today if you don't want to. Or, complaints that Dell offers 32 GiB DDR4 RAM in laptops so Apple should offer it, too, usually with an odd argument that there's no technical reason Apple couldn't do it.
4) Cost is one of many benefits. As for Apple's silicon for running macOS and Intel's performance per watt being "on par" I'll have to see where you're getting that information because we've been seeing the iPad Pro trounce the MBP in HW benchmarks, which is well and good, but the real test is real world performance and you should know that an OS and silicon that are built around each other can do a lot more than an OS that is at the mercy of a general CPU.
Strawman. They CAN call it a Mac but it would result in the same confusion as the windows RT.
And the hardware wouldn’t be consistent across the lineup which was the case in prior Mac processor transitions.
Cost is the primary benefit of ARM. For the same workload Intel performance per watt as a system is on par
1) Oh, now you finally admit that Apple could name a machine running macOS on Mac HW a Mac. How magnanimous of you. You're right. They could name it MateBook X Pro OS if they wanted to and license it Avon for his exclusive use. Seems unlikely, but they could do it.
Hell, I've repeatedly stated on this forum that an ARM-based desktop or notebook from Apple could be a "Mac or Mac-like" but I don't recall you ever using that term. I even suggested that Apple could fork from the traditional Mac branding because the path for this Mac-like machine would have certain limitations, like no Boot Camp, no virtualization, a more refined OS subsystem that wouldn't let you see all system folders in Finder, and/or a requirement to use the App Store (i.e: no side-loading apps).
Even now with Extensions for Safari in Mojave requiring the App Store and better authentication this move to securing macOS is coming even more into light, and I first stated this potential shift back when Adobe Flash was still a commonly needed browser plug-in. Remember plug-ins?
2) I've seen nothing about Apple's operation that works like MS and Windows. Do you remember all the issues MS had with 64-bit version of Windows? Did you see anything like that from Apple's adoption to 64-bit? Of course not! It was a major undertaking but Apple being Apple worked to make it as seamless for users as possible instead of it being a completely separate OS that required separate apps. Even their move to 64-bit to the iPhone came years before anyone thought it was possible.
Now, years later, Apple has even more resources that make this better for developers and users, and we're seeing all the signs of Apple readying another transition as they deprecate code for macOS that isn't fully 64-bit. Could all their planning fail? Could they make some massive miscalculation that causes their demise? Sure, I guess so. I certainly can't rule it out, but I also wouldn't bet against Apple here.
3) HW has never been consistent. That's one of the biggest complaints we see around here. Even now with USB-C cables and peripherals being available all over for great prices and with clear benefits over having a dozen separate ports we still see people bitching about USB-C being too soon even though there's no reason to get a USB-C Mac today if you don't want to. Or, complaints that Dell offers 32 GiB DDR4 RAM in laptops so Apple should offer it, too, usually with an odd argument that there's no technical reason Apple couldn't do it.
4) Cost is one of many benefits. As for Apple's silicon for running macOS and Intel's performance per watt being "on par" I'll have to see where you're getting that information because we've been seeing the iPad Pro trounce the MBP in HW benchmarks, which is well and good, but the real test is real world performance and you should know that an OS and silicon that are built around each other can do a lot more than an OS that is at the mercy of a general CPU.
Strawman. They CAN call it a Mac but it would result in the same confusion as the windows RT.
And the hardware wouldn’t be consistent across the lineup which was the case in prior Mac processor transitions.
Cost is the primary benefit of ARM. For the same workload Intel performance per watt as a system is on par
1) Oh, now you finally admit that Apple could name a machine running macOS on Mac HW a Mac. How magnanimous of you. You're right. They could name it MateBook X Pro OS if they wanted to and license it Avon for his exclusive use. Seems unlikely, but they could do it.
Hell, I've repeatedly stated on this forum that an ARM-based desktop or notebook from Apple could be a "Mac or Mac-like" but I don't recall you ever using that term. I even suggested that Apple could fork from the traditional Mac branding because the path for this Mac-like machine would have certain limitations, like no Boot Camp, no virtualization, a more refined OS subsystem that wouldn't let you see all system folders in Finder, and/or a requirement to use the App Store (i.e: no side-loading apps).
Even now with Extensions for Safari in Mojave requiring the App Store and better authentication this move to securing macOS is coming even more into light, and I first stated this potential shift back when Adobe Flash was still a commonly needed browser plug-in. Remember plug-ins?
2) I've seen nothing about Apple's operation that works like MS and Windows. Do you remember all the issues MS had with 64-bit version of Windows? Did you see anything like that from Apple's adoption to 64-bit? Of course not! It was a major undertaking but Apple being Apple worked to make it as seamless for users as possible instead of it being a completely separate OS that required separate apps. Even their move to 64-bit to the iPhone came years before anyone thought it was possible.
Now, years later, Apple has even more resources that make this better for developers and users, and we're seeing all the signs of Apple readying another transition as they deprecate code for macOS that isn't fully 64-bit. Could all their planning fail? Could they make some massive miscalculation that causes their demise? Sure, I guess so. I certainly can't rule it out, but I also wouldn't bet against Apple here.
3) HW has never been consistent. That's one of the biggest complaints we see around here. Even now with USB-C cables and peripherals being available all over for great prices and with clear benefits over having a dozen separate ports we still see people bitching about USB-C being too soon even though there's no reason to get a USB-C Mac today if you don't want to. Or, complaints that Dell offers 32 GiB DDR4 RAM in laptops so Apple should offer it, too, usually with an odd argument that there's no technical reason Apple couldn't do it.
4) Cost is one of many benefits. As for Apple's silicon for running macOS and Intel's performance per watt being "on par" I'll have to see where you're getting that information because we've been seeing the iPad Pro trounce the MBP in HW benchmarks, which is well and good, but the real test is real world performance and you should know that an OS and silicon that are built around each other can do a lot more than an OS that is at the mercy of a general CPU.
There are two issues: can they call a standalone ARM mini a “Mac” and whether it would be a Mac. Apple can do anything to their lineup but in the past they transitioned the entire line to new processors as quickly as possible. Thus, your point 3 is wrong...while different Mac models have different capabilities from a software standpoint you compile for the same target.
As for point 1 you haven’t been arguing that it would be “Mac-like” but “Mac” in this thread. I have no idea nor any real desire to keep track of what you’ve said in the past but if Apple doesn’t call it part of the Mac line up it’s wouldn’t be a Mac desipite running MacOS.
Just like the iPad mini isn’t an iPhone and the iPhone Plus isn’t an iPad despite both running iOS, both ARM and very similar size, shape, etc.
An ARM mini is not likely to happen and not likely called a “Mac” even if it did happen.
Remember, this email below was only 8 months ago. Do you think he (and Schiller soon after) would say anything along the lines of this without having some sort of future plan for the mini? I sure don't.
Why don’t you? They announced a new professional computer nearly 2 years early (and counting). They care even less about the Mac Mini, so why not even just announce an update in a personal e-mail to someone? What do they care?
Huh? I take this to be a pretty obvious pre-announcement of an upcoming mini, but because they're not ready to share details for Apple Reasons™. They know it'll leak and throw a bone to the mini-obsessed people who aren't too busy stomping their feet and crying about it to pay attention. If it were dead, they wouldn't have responded at all.
It is interesting that Apple doesn’t provide Pages, Numbers, Keynote, Safari, etc on AppleTV when they have iOS versions.
What a bizarre assertion. You'd edit in these apps with the Siri Remote? ¯\(°_o)/¯
aTV supports BT keyboards. A 2 second google would have informed you of this. And if your phone is paired it automatically gets notification to become a keyboard when needed. The Siri remote has a small trackpad. Not sure if the Magic Trackpad would pair.
You don’t own an aTV? Because very few folks with an iPhone types using the Siri remote...
If they offered even just Safari you could use Google Docs...
It is interesting that Apple doesn’t provide Pages, Numbers, Keynote, Safari, etc on AppleTV when they have iOS versions.
What a bizarre assertion. You'd edit in these apps with the Siri Remote? ¯\(°_o)/¯
aTV supports BT keyboards. A 2 second google would have informed you of this. And if your phone is paired it automatically gets notification to become a keyboard when needed. The Siri remote has a small trackpad. Not sure if the Magic Trackpad would pair.
You don’t own an aTV? Because very few folks with an iPhone types using the Siri remote...
If they offered even just Safari you could use Google Docs...
Yes, I own one, and know you can pair a keyboard, and in no way can I imagine anyone wanting to use these apps except in an emergency on a TV much less Apple bothering to release them for the platform.
It is interesting that Apple doesn’t provide Pages, Numbers, Keynote, Safari, etc on AppleTV when they have iOS versions.
What a bizarre assertion. You'd edit in these apps with the Siri Remote? ¯\(°_o)/¯
aTV supports BT keyboards. A 2 second google would have informed you of this. And if your phone is paired it automatically gets notification to become a keyboard when needed. The Siri remote has a small trackpad. Not sure if the Magic Trackpad would pair.
You don’t own an aTV? Because very few folks with an iPhone types using the Siri remote...
If they offered even just Safari you could use Google Docs...
Yes, I own one, and know you can pair a keyboard, and in no way can I imagine anyone wanting to use these apps except in an emergency on a TV much less Apple bothering to release them for the platform.
I use a 48” 4K as a monitor for my Mac Pro. It cost around $350. One of the LG 27” 4K monitors is under $300 if 48” seems too large for desktop use (it’s not)
The aTV 4K is the ARM Mini hardware that some folks here crave after with likely better performance than a Jetson TX2 as is much less with a little tinkering.
More than enough for school work, email, browsing and light photo/video editing...and of course gaming and video.
But it’s never going to happen. aTV App Store rules deliberately gimps the aTV by making UIWebView (and wkwebview) a private API call.
It is interesting that Apple doesn’t provide Pages, Numbers, Keynote, Safari, etc on AppleTV when they have iOS versions.
What a bizarre assertion. You'd edit in these apps with the Siri Remote? ¯\(°_o)/¯
aTV supports BT keyboards. A 2 second google would have informed you of this. And if your phone is paired it automatically gets notification to become a keyboard when needed. The Siri remote has a small trackpad. Not sure if the Magic Trackpad would pair.
You don’t own an aTV? Because very few folks with an iPhone types using the Siri remote...
If they offered even just Safari you could use Google Docs...
Yes, I own one, and know you can pair a keyboard, and in no way can I imagine anyone wanting to use these apps except in an emergency on a TV much less Apple bothering to release them for the platform.
I use a 48” 4K as a monitor for my Mac Pro. It cost around $350. One of the LG 27” 4K monitors is under $300 if 48” seems too large for desktop use (it’s not)
The aTV 4K is the ARM Mini hardware that some folks here crave after with likely better performance than a Jetson TX2 as is much less with a little tinkering.
More than enough for school work, email, browsing and light photo/video editing...and of course gaming and video.
But it’s never going to happen. aTV App Store rules deliberately gimps the aTV by making UIWebView (and wkwebview) a private API call.
Neat. A $150 tv streaming box is not marketed as or meant to be used as a computer, and obviously Apple doesn't intend to do so.
It is interesting that Apple doesn’t provide Pages, Numbers, Keynote, Safari, etc on AppleTV when they have iOS versions.
What a bizarre assertion. You'd edit in these apps with the Siri Remote? ¯\(°_o)/¯
aTV supports BT keyboards. A 2 second google would have informed you of this. And if your phone is paired it automatically gets notification to become a keyboard when needed. The Siri remote has a small trackpad. Not sure if the Magic Trackpad would pair.
You don’t own an aTV? Because very few folks with an iPhone types using the Siri remote...
If they offered even just Safari you could use Google Docs...
Yes, I own one, and know you can pair a keyboard, and in no way can I imagine anyone wanting to use these apps except in an emergency on a TV much less Apple bothering to release them for the platform.
I use a 48” 4K as a monitor for my Mac Pro. It cost around $350. One of the LG 27” 4K monitors is under $300 if 48” seems too large for desktop use (it’s not)
The aTV 4K is the ARM Mini hardware that some folks here crave after with likely better performance than a Jetson TX2 as is much less with a little tinkering.
More than enough for school work, email, browsing and light photo/video editing...and of course gaming and video.
But it’s never going to happen. aTV App Store rules deliberately gimps the aTV by making UIWebView (and wkwebview) a private API call.
Neat. A $150 tv streaming box is not marketed as or meant to be used as a computer, and obviously Apple doesn't intend to do so.
Of course not. The aTV 4K is a capable box even priced at $600 if it had 8GB ram like the Jetson. That it doesn't exist despite being trivial to make means Apple isn't likely to introduce an ARM based mini any time soon and even less likely it would be under $600 since thats about the price of a Jetson.
It is interesting that Apple doesn’t provide Pages, Numbers, Keynote, Safari, etc on AppleTV when they have iOS versions.
What a bizarre assertion. You'd edit in these apps with the Siri Remote? ¯\(°_o)/¯
aTV supports BT keyboards. A 2 second google would have informed you of this. And if your phone is paired it automatically gets notification to become a keyboard when needed. The Siri remote has a small trackpad. Not sure if the Magic Trackpad would pair.
You don’t own an aTV? Because very few folks with an iPhone types using the Siri remote...
If they offered even just Safari you could use Google Docs...
Yes, I own one, and know you can pair a keyboard, and in no way can I imagine anyone wanting to use these apps except in an emergency on a TV much less Apple bothering to release them for the platform.
I use a 48” 4K as a monitor for my Mac Pro. It cost around $350. One of the LG 27” 4K monitors is under $300 if 48” seems too large for desktop use (it’s not)
The aTV 4K is the ARM Mini hardware that some folks here crave after with likely better performance than a Jetson TX2 as is much less with a little tinkering.
More than enough for school work, email, browsing and light photo/video editing...and of course gaming and video.
But it’s never going to happen. aTV App Store rules deliberately gimps the aTV by making UIWebView (and wkwebview) a private API call.
Neat. A $150 tv streaming box is not marketed as or meant to be used as a computer, and obviously Apple doesn't intend to do so.
Of course not. The aTV 4K is a capable box even priced at $600 if it had 8GB ram like the Jetson. That it doesn't exist despite being trivial to make means Apple isn't likely to introduce an ARM based mini any time soon and even less likely it would be under $600 since thats about the price of a Jetson.
They're not going to release any ARM-based Macs anytime soon due to a whole host of reasons, so it's a moot point.
But with all that said, I’m sure people rather spend their time complaining than actually have a conversation. Heck I think I’m probably the only one who thinks it still have potential to be great.
All in all, there are three major issues:
updating Mac hardware fixing the reliability of it have a better altitude
not because the design “sucks”, but their entire altitude.
It is interesting that Apple doesn’t provide Pages, Numbers, Keynote, Safari, etc on AppleTV when they have iOS versions.
What a bizarre assertion. You'd edit in these apps with the Siri Remote? ¯\(°_o)/¯
aTV supports BT keyboards. A 2 second google would have informed you of this. And if your phone is paired it automatically gets notification to become a keyboard when needed. The Siri remote has a small trackpad. Not sure if the Magic Trackpad would pair.
You don’t own an aTV? Because very few folks with an iPhone types using the Siri remote...
If they offered even just Safari you could use Google Docs...
Yes, I own one, and know you can pair a keyboard, and in no way can I imagine anyone wanting to use these apps except in an emergency on a TV much less Apple bothering to release them for the platform.
I use a 48” 4K as a monitor for my Mac Pro. It cost around $350. One of the LG 27” 4K monitors is under $300 if 48” seems too large for desktop use (it’s not)
The aTV 4K is the ARM Mini hardware that some folks here crave after with likely better performance than a Jetson TX2 as is much less with a little tinkering.
More than enough for school work, email, browsing and light photo/video editing...and of course gaming and video.
But it’s never going to happen. aTV App Store rules deliberately gimps the aTV by making UIWebView (and wkwebview) a private API call.
Neat. A $150 tv streaming box is not marketed as or meant to be used as a computer, and obviously Apple doesn't intend to do so.
Of course not. The aTV 4K is a capable box even priced at $600 if it had 8GB ram like the Jetson. That it doesn't exist despite being trivial to make means Apple isn't likely to introduce an ARM based mini any time soon and even less likely it would be under $600 since thats about the price of a Jetson.
They're not going to release any ARM-based Macs anytime soon due to a whole host of reasons, so it's a moot point.
Like?
Performance? there’s no difference between them technically. They said years ago? I wouldn’t even call that a definite answer. they cannot be mass produced? Yes they can.
finally, let’s not forget that Intel haven’t made any change in their architecture because they’re waiting for 10nm forever. A Monsoon with enough cooling and higher clock frequency could possible be better than what Intel’s current offering.
It is interesting that Apple doesn’t provide Pages, Numbers, Keynote, Safari, etc on AppleTV when they have iOS versions.
What a bizarre assertion. You'd edit in these apps with the Siri Remote? ¯\(°_o)/¯
aTV supports BT keyboards. A 2 second google would have informed you of this. And if your phone is paired it automatically gets notification to become a keyboard when needed. The Siri remote has a small trackpad. Not sure if the Magic Trackpad would pair.
You don’t own an aTV? Because very few folks with an iPhone types using the Siri remote...
If they offered even just Safari you could use Google Docs...
Yes, I own one, and know you can pair a keyboard, and in no way can I imagine anyone wanting to use these apps except in an emergency on a TV much less Apple bothering to release them for the platform.
I use a 48” 4K as a monitor for my Mac Pro. It cost around $350. One of the LG 27” 4K monitors is under $300 if 48” seems too large for desktop use (it’s not)
The aTV 4K is the ARM Mini hardware that some folks here crave after with likely better performance than a Jetson TX2 as is much less with a little tinkering.
More than enough for school work, email, browsing and light photo/video editing...and of course gaming and video.
But it’s never going to happen. aTV App Store rules deliberately gimps the aTV by making UIWebView (and wkwebview) a private API call.
Neat. A $150 tv streaming box is not marketed as or meant to be used as a computer, and obviously Apple doesn't intend to do so.
Of course not. The aTV 4K is a capable box even priced at $600 if it had 8GB ram like the Jetson. That it doesn't exist despite being trivial to make means Apple isn't likely to introduce an ARM based mini any time soon and even less likely it would be under $600 since thats about the price of a Jetson.
They're not going to release any ARM-based Macs anytime soon due to a whole host of reasons, so it's a moot point.
Like?
Performance? there’s no difference between them technically. They said years ago? I wouldn’t even call that a definite answer. they cannot be mass produced? Yes they can.
finally, let’s not forget that Intel haven’t made any change in their architecture because they’re waiting for 10nm forever. A Monsoon with enough cooling and higher clock frequency could possible be better than what Intel’s current offering.
Because there’s no ARM macOS software yet. I’m not saying they can’t or wont, just that it’s not happening soon.
They're not going to release any ARM-based Macs anytime soon due to a whole host of reasons, so it's a moot point.
Like?
Performance? there’s no difference between them technically. They said years ago? I wouldn’t even call that a definite answer. they cannot be mass produced? Yes they can.
finally, let’s not forget that Intel haven’t made any change in their architecture because they’re waiting for 10nm forever. A Monsoon with enough cooling and higher clock frequency could possible be better than what Intel’s current offering.
Because there’s no ARM macOS software yet. I’m not saying they can’t or wont, just that it’s not happening soon.
You'll have to do better than stating "soon" an argument when asserting that the topic isn't open for discussion. Even if you say, for example, Apple is 10 years away from being able to ditch Intel for their entry-level Mac notebooks in favor of Apple silicon there's still a discussion that can be had as to why you think it will take until 2028 for Apple's silicon to be good enough for an entry-level Mac when the overall performance and performance-per-watt is already besting Intel CULV Intel chips being used today.
They're not going to release any ARM-based Macs anytime soon due to a whole host of reasons, so it's a moot point.
Like?
Performance? there’s no difference between them technically. They said years ago? I wouldn’t even call that a definite answer. they cannot be mass produced? Yes they can.
finally, let’s not forget that Intel haven’t made any change in their architecture because they’re waiting for 10nm forever. A Monsoon with enough cooling and higher clock frequency could possible be better than what Intel’s current offering.
Because there’s no ARM macOS software yet. I’m not saying they can’t or wont, just that it’s not happening soon.
You'll have to do better than stating "soon" an argument when asserting that the topic isn't open for discussion. Even if you say, for example, Apple is 10 years away from being able to ditch Intel for their entry-level Mac notebooks in favor of Apple silicon there's still a discussion that can be had as to why you think it will take until 2028 for Apple's silicon to be good enough for an entry-level Mac when the overall performance and performance-per-watt is already besting Intel CULV Intel chips being used today.
I stated no such thing. I was referring specifically to the comment that the fact the ATV could function as a mini and they haven’t done that is proof they aren’t doing that anytime soon. I was merely stating there are other factors as to why it’s not happening soon, like the lack of infrastructure, apps, the fact the transition hasn’t been announced, so forth.
They're not going to release any ARM-based Macs anytime soon due to a whole host of reasons, so it's a moot point.
Like?
Performance? there’s no difference between them technically. They said years ago? I wouldn’t even call that a definite answer. they cannot be mass produced? Yes they can.
finally, let’s not forget that Intel haven’t made any change in their architecture because they’re waiting for 10nm forever. A Monsoon with enough cooling and higher clock frequency could possible be better than what Intel’s current offering.
Because there’s no ARM macOS software yet. I’m not saying they can’t or wont, just that it’s not happening soon.
You'll have to do better than stating "soon" an argument when asserting that the topic isn't open for discussion. Even if you say, for example, Apple is 10 years away from being able to ditch Intel for their entry-level Mac notebooks in favor of Apple silicon there's still a discussion that can be had as to why you think it will take until 2028 for Apple's silicon to be good enough for an entry-level Mac when the overall performance and performance-per-watt is already besting Intel CULV Intel chips being used today.
I stated no such thing. I was referring specifically to the comment that the fact the ATV could function as a mini and they haven’t done that is proof they aren’t doing that anytime soon. I was merely stating there are other factors as to why it’s not happening soon, like the lack of infrastructure, apps, the fact the transition hasn’t been announced, so forth.
1) Again, "soon" means nothing without being qualified by something that points to some sort of time frame. "Not soon" as in not this Autumn? "Not soon" as in not in the next 18 months? "Not soon" as in not the next decades? "No soon" as as long as Tim Cook is CEO? "Not soon" so long as Mac sales are on the rise, selling in the millions, and while Xcode is not an iPad app? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
2) The Apple TV could never be a Mac mini. The SoC doesn't have the features that would be needed to replace the HW in even the cheapest Mac mini. It couldn't even be used for a modern iPad. For example, they'd need to increase the memory bandwidth so it can support at least 8 GiB RAM (at a minimum) even if we use a hypothetical Late-2018 launch date for such a device (which I don't think is very likely). I see a lot of people trying to shoehorn the A-series chip into the hypothetical ARM-base Mac but this seems like something that would warrant its own class of Apple chips.
3) The infrastructure is clearly there and Apple has made obvious moves for years that will make compiling apps that run on AArch64 using macOS UI a seamless process once they're ready to launch that I don't see how anyone can say in 2018 that it will impossible.
4) I'm bothered by your "they haven’t done that is proof they aren’t doing that" statement. How can you possibly see that as a reasonable response to anything Apple has ever done. Are you the guy who on 08 Jan 2007 would've said "they haven’t [released an smartphone yet so] that is proof they aren’t doing that"? Do you see how silly that sounds? I remember saying that when Apple releases a smartwatch that will likely be OLED and detailed why I felt that display tech was the best choice for a smartwatch. Pretty much everyone disagreed with me on this forum and yet Apple did it and now they have an iPhone with OLED. Do you see the benefits of OLED on the Apple Watch over an LCD with an LED backlight? This notion that if it doesn't exist already that it will never exist is not a salient argument.
You need to consider that Intel's chips are expensive, the Intel keeps pushing back release dates, Intel's gains are slowly dramatically, Intel's chips include features that Apple doesn't need, Apple's SoC (which include GPUs and other silicon) can be idealized for their OS (and vice versa) which can offer real world performance and security not available in off-the-shelf solutions), Apple silicon can be less expensive than Intel, and pple's silicon can be designed at Apple's pace. Those are just benefits off the top of my head. And it's not like this is 2008 when Apple purchase PA Semi and people were still scratching their head because Apple had no experience in designing their own chips so I think it's folly to assume in 2018 that Apple has no experience or expertise in this area—or as you put it "lack of infrastructure"—in designing their own chips for their own OSes.
Uh, I think you're projecting your argument with @nht ;onto me. I was just trying to steer my subthread back to what looks like an upcoming mini update is likely to be, and nht kept pushing the AppleTV/ARM-based mini idea which I was pushing back on due to the suggestions you can pair a keyboard with it, might as well be able to run iWork apps on it, so forth. Again, I never said they're not going to do this, I was referring to Cook's November 2017 email implying there was an update coming, which I would expect at this point to be Intel-based. I'm not suggesting in any way that ARM-based Macs aren't coming or are unlikely, and most definitely never said it was impossible. You're putting words in my mouth, and a lot of them at that.
Comments
Hell, I've repeatedly stated on this forum that an ARM-based desktop or notebook from Apple could be a "Mac or Mac-like" but I don't recall you ever using that term. I even suggested that Apple could fork from the traditional Mac branding because the path for this Mac-like machine would have certain limitations, like no Boot Camp, no virtualization, a more refined OS subsystem that wouldn't let you see all system folders in Finder, and/or a requirement to use the App Store (i.e: no side-loading apps).
Even now with Extensions for Safari in Mojave requiring the App Store and better authentication this move to securing macOS is coming even more into light, and I first stated this potential shift back when Adobe Flash was still a commonly needed browser plug-in. Remember plug-ins?
2) I've seen nothing about Apple's operation that works like MS and Windows. Do you remember all the issues MS had with 64-bit version of Windows? Did you see anything like that from Apple's adoption to 64-bit? Of course not! It was a major undertaking but Apple being Apple worked to make it as seamless for users as possible instead of it being a completely separate OS that required separate apps. Even their move to 64-bit to the iPhone came years before anyone thought it was possible.
Now, years later, Apple has even more resources that make this better for developers and users, and we're seeing all the signs of Apple readying another transition as they deprecate code for macOS that isn't fully 64-bit. Could all their planning fail? Could they make some massive miscalculation that causes their demise? Sure, I guess so. I certainly can't rule it out, but I also wouldn't bet against Apple here.
3) HW has never been consistent. That's one of the biggest complaints we see around here. Even now with USB-C cables and peripherals being available all over for great prices and with clear benefits over having a dozen separate ports we still see people bitching about USB-C being too soon even though there's no reason to get a USB-C Mac today if you don't want to. Or, complaints that Dell offers 32 GiB DDR4 RAM in laptops so Apple should offer it, too, usually with an odd argument that there's no technical reason Apple couldn't do it.
4) Cost is one of many benefits. As for Apple's silicon for running macOS and Intel's performance per watt being "on par" I'll have to see where you're getting that information because we've been seeing the iPad Pro trounce the MBP in HW benchmarks, which is well and good, but the real test is real world performance and you should know that an OS and silicon that are built around each other can do a lot more than an OS that is at the mercy of a general CPU.
As for point 1 you haven’t been arguing that it would be “Mac-like” but “Mac” in this thread. I have no idea nor any real desire to keep track of what you’ve said in the past but if Apple doesn’t call it part of the Mac line up it’s wouldn’t be a Mac desipite running MacOS.
Just like the iPad mini isn’t an iPhone and the iPhone Plus isn’t an iPad despite both running iOS, both ARM and very similar size, shape, etc.
An ARM mini is not likely to happen and not likely called a “Mac” even if it did happen.
You don’t own an aTV? Because very few folks with an iPhone types using the Siri remote...
If they offered even just Safari you could use Google Docs...
The aTV 4K is the ARM Mini hardware that some folks here crave after with likely better performance than a Jetson TX2 as is much less with a little tinkering.
More than enough for school work, email, browsing and light photo/video editing...and of course gaming and video.
But it’s never going to happen. aTV App Store rules deliberately gimps the aTV by making UIWebView (and wkwebview) a private API call.
https://polldaddy.com/poll/9672137/?view=results&msg=voted
The same thing I feel about the touch bar, which is not something totally pointless, and certainly fixable. I said it because there are communities actually putting out good stuff on it.
https://github.com/vas3k/btt-touchbar-presets
https://www.haptictouchbar.com/
But with all that said, I’m sure people rather spend their time complaining than actually have a conversation. Heck I think I’m probably the only one who thinks it still have potential to be great.
All in all, there are three major issues:
updating Mac hardware
fixing the reliability of it
have a better altitude
not because the design “sucks”, but their entire altitude.
Performance? there’s no difference between them technically.
They said years ago? I wouldn’t even call that a definite answer.
they cannot be mass produced? Yes they can.
finally, let’s not forget that Intel haven’t made any change in their architecture because they’re waiting for 10nm forever. A Monsoon with enough cooling and higher clock frequency could possible be better than what Intel’s current offering.
2) The Apple TV could never be a Mac mini. The SoC doesn't have the features that would be needed to replace the HW in even the cheapest Mac mini. It couldn't even be used for a modern iPad. For example, they'd need to increase the memory bandwidth so it can support at least 8 GiB RAM (at a minimum) even if we use a hypothetical Late-2018 launch date for such a device (which I don't think is very likely). I see a lot of people trying to shoehorn the A-series chip into the hypothetical ARM-base Mac but this seems like something that would warrant its own class of Apple chips.
3) The infrastructure is clearly there and Apple has made obvious moves for years that will make compiling apps that run on AArch64 using macOS UI a seamless process once they're ready to launch that I don't see how anyone can say in 2018 that it will impossible.
4) I'm bothered by your "they haven’t done that is proof they aren’t doing that" statement. How can you possibly see that as a reasonable response to anything Apple has ever done. Are you the guy who on 08 Jan 2007 would've said "they haven’t [released an smartphone yet so] that is proof they aren’t doing that"? Do you see how silly that sounds? I remember saying that when Apple releases a smartwatch that will likely be OLED and detailed why I felt that display tech was the best choice for a smartwatch. Pretty much everyone disagreed with me on this forum and yet Apple did it and now they have an iPhone with OLED. Do you see the benefits of OLED on the Apple Watch over an LCD with an LED backlight? This notion that if it doesn't exist already that it will never exist is not a salient argument.
You need to consider that Intel's chips are expensive, the Intel keeps pushing back release dates, Intel's gains are slowly dramatically, Intel's chips include features that Apple doesn't need, Apple's SoC (which include GPUs and other silicon) can be idealized for their OS (and vice versa) which can offer real world performance and security not available in off-the-shelf solutions), Apple silicon can be less expensive than Intel, and pple's silicon can be designed at Apple's pace. Those are just benefits off the top of my head. And it's not like this is 2008 when Apple purchase PA Semi and people were still scratching their head because Apple had no experience in designing their own chips so I think it's folly to assume in 2018 that Apple has no experience or expertise in this area—or as you put it "lack of infrastructure"—in designing their own chips for their own OSes.