I know this will sound crazy but I predict that Apple WILL NOT position the A-series as the low-end product, but instead position the A-series as the "High End" product categories.
I think it is already happening with the price of iPad Pros. I think they will retain exclusive features compared to Intel Chips, maybe these will be performance (just look at the current iPad A-series, faster than what 92% of portable computers), or battery life, or specialized application support, or maybe it will just be a spec advantage, like more Ram or thinner products.
Now this could fail, and I could be 100% wrong about how they position the A-series as premium but I find it very hard to believe they would make a transition unless 1. The A-series is better than Intel. and if that is true then why make it a value low-profit product??
Agreed. And if the power is indeed better than the Intel chips, i would expect low volume niche machines like the new Mac Pro to be the test bed for these chips and both prove themselves and scale to consumers via that model.
Except pro level machines rely on pro level software, typically from large, slow moving sources. What’s the point of a super fast workstation if I can’t run Pro Tools on it?
As with the switch to Intel, you deal with it and move on. What was the option? Stay with the Power PC chips to avoid upsetting people short term or work towards the future. Companies die when they can’t make the change.
I know this will sound crazy but I predict that Apple WILL NOT position the A-series as the low-end product, but instead position the A-series as the "High End" product categories.
I think it is already happening with the price of iPad Pros. I think they will retain exclusive features compared to Intel Chips, maybe these will be performance (just look at the current iPad A-series, faster than what 92% of portable computers), or battery life, or specialized application support, or maybe it will just be a spec advantage, like more Ram or thinner products.
Now this could fail, and I could be 100% wrong about how they position the A-series as premium but I find it very hard to believe they would make a transition unless 1. The A-series is better than Intel. and if that is true then why make it a value low-profit product??
Agreed. And if the power is indeed better than the Intel chips, i would expect low volume niche machines like the new Mac Pro to be the test bed for these chips and both prove themselves and scale to consumers via that model.
Except pro level machines rely on pro level software, typically from large, slow moving sources. What’s the point of a super fast workstation if I can’t run Pro Tools on it?
Large, slow moving sources? Like Nokia, Ericsson, Palm and BlackBerry who were too slow to adapt when the iPhone came out?
Microsoft has Windows on ARM now, with a 32-bit software compatibility layer, so virtualization or even Windows on top of one of these new machines isn't out of the question
One thing that nobody is talking about though is compatibility with Intel software. Sure Windows and some software will run on A series chips. But what about the Mac software that is coded to run on Intel? Are they going to run a Blue Box/Yellow Box strategy for a while? It took years before all critical software was ported from PPC to Intel. Some never was and there were a fair number of people who refused to update their OS for years after Apple dropped Rosetta, because they did not dare lose the old software they depended on. Any idea what Apple is going to do for them?
Move on or get left behind. The backwards compatibility at the expense of moving forward is a Microsoft thing that resulted in the mess that is the Windows world.
Apparently I wasn't clear.
The argument was that Apple should begin the transition to ARM with it's professional line. I'm saying I disagree.
Buyers of Apple's pro computers use software from vendors who are not going to quickly release an ARM version of their wares.
If there's no ARM version of the software I use to make my living, there's no reason for me to buy an ARM-based Mac. I'll either stay with what I have or switch to Windows.
That will hurt sales of new Macs. Users won't be left behind, Apple will.
There's no point in Apple producing a machine its intended market won't buy, hence it may not be a good idea for Apple to start the move to ARM at the high end. Users of entry level machines are less likely to be inextricably attached to specific systems and titles in which they have a sizeable investment. Thus I think the low end is a safer place to begin the switch.
BS. If it were coming to MacOS then AMD Threadripper and Ryzen would already be here.
How does this statement make any sense? What does AMD have to do with Apple planning to switch to their own ARM chips, AMD using x86/AMD64?
So there is no rational basis for Apple to invest heavily into augmenting their ARM designs for a workstation [Mac Pro], never mind the desktop/laptop [And no iOS is fast because it is very limited in multi-user/multithreaded, multi-core based processing that will be a must on macOS. There are literally hundreds to thousands of processess/threads that are and can be running inside OS X that ARM won't ever supplant what is coming down the pike.
Basic threads and processes on my Macbook Pro 13: 1391 threads, 346 processes. The ARM would get slammed with that and that is nothing when pushing an iMac Pro or Mac Pro.
I’d say Apple’s obsession with pushing thin & light designs to do performance work are precisely why they need to move off Intel. Citing the squandering of resources during the digital arms race is like justifying the mileage of a 70s gas guzzler or wattage of an incandescent lightbulb. We’d rather judge productivity by actual work done rather than assume it by resources wasted. The GPU compute race has picked up that mantle. Better to trade ALUs for on the fly RAW import or live HEIF/h.265 export logic.
The PPC to Intel transition occurred in 2006. iMac in Feb 2006, Mac Pro in Fall 2006. Less than one year to release the hardware. But Jobs said that Apple had been running OSX on Intel for 5 years in 2005 when the transition was announced.
if the Pro market is dead, then Apple doesn’t need Pro developers if there are iOS developers galore. But Apple negotiates behind the scenes with developers for years before a launch like this.
On day one, there will be major apps to support ARM on MacBook if they are needed. The average Consumer doesn’t care about chips or architectures.
Say goodbye to RAM upgrades, SSDs, etc. The age of iPad-like MacBooks will be upon us.
I know this will sound crazy but I predict that Apple WILL NOT position the A-series as the low-end product, but instead position the A-series as the "High End" product categories.
I think it is already happening with the price of iPad Pros. I think they will retain exclusive features compared to Intel Chips, maybe these will be performance (just look at the current iPad A-series, faster than what 92% of portable computers), or battery life, or specialized application support, or maybe it will just be a spec advantage, like more Ram or thinner products.
Now this could fail, and I could be 100% wrong about how they position the A-series as premium but I find it very hard to believe they would make a transition unless 1. The A-series is better than Intel. and if that is true then why make it a value low-profit product??
Agreed. And if the power is indeed better than the Intel chips, i would expect low volume niche machines like the new Mac Pro to be the test bed for these chips and both prove themselves and scale to consumers via that model.
Except pro level machines rely on pro level software, typically from large, slow moving sources. What’s the point of a super fast workstation if I can’t run Pro Tools on it?
As with the switch to Intel, you deal with it and move on. What was the option? Stay with the Power PC chips to avoid upsetting people short term or work towards the future. Companies die when they can’t make the change.
I know this will sound crazy but I predict that Apple WILL NOT position the A-series as the low-end product, but instead position the A-series as the "High End" product categories.
I think it is already happening with the price of iPad Pros. I think they will retain exclusive features compared to Intel Chips, maybe these will be performance (just look at the current iPad A-series, faster than what 92% of portable computers), or battery life, or specialized application support, or maybe it will just be a spec advantage, like more Ram or thinner products.
Now this could fail, and I could be 100% wrong about how they position the A-series as premium but I find it very hard to believe they would make a transition unless 1. The A-series is better than Intel. and if that is true then why make it a value low-profit product??
Agreed. And if the power is indeed better than the Intel chips, i would expect low volume niche machines like the new Mac Pro to be the test bed for these chips and both prove themselves and scale to consumers via that model.
Except pro level machines rely on pro level software, typically from large, slow moving sources. What’s the point of a super fast workstation if I can’t run Pro Tools on it?
Large, slow moving sources? Like Nokia, Ericsson, Palm and BlackBerry who were too slow to adapt when the iPhone came out?
Microsoft has Windows on ARM now, with a 32-bit software compatibility layer, so virtualization or even Windows on top of one of these new machines isn't out of the question
One thing that nobody is talking about though is compatibility with Intel software. Sure Windows and some software will run on A series chips. But what about the Mac software that is coded to run on Intel? Are they going to run a Blue Box/Yellow Box strategy for a while? It took years before all critical software was ported from PPC to Intel. Some never was and there were a fair number of people who refused to update their OS for years after Apple dropped Rosetta, because they did not dare lose the old software they depended on. Any idea what Apple is going to do for them?
Move on or get left behind. The backwards compatibility at the expense of moving forward is a Microsoft thing that resulted in the mess that is the Windows world.
Apparently I wasn't clear.
The argument was that Apple should begin the transition to ARM with it's professional line. I'm saying I disagree.
Buyers of Apple's pro computers use software from vendors who are not going to quickly release an ARM version of their wares.
If there's no ARM version of the software I use to make my living, there's no reason for me to buy an ARM-based Mac. I'll either stay with what I have or switch to Windows.
That will hurt sales of new Macs. Users won't be left behind, Apple will.
There's no point in Apple producing a machine its intended market won't buy, hence it may not be a good idea for Apple to start the move to ARM at the high end. Users of entry level machines are less likely to be inextricably attached to specific systems and titles in which they have a sizeable investment. Thus I think the low end is a safer place to begin the switch.
The biggest companies will. Above Autodesk Absolutely. Others may die. But then there is opportunity with newer players. All the iPad prosumer companies can now go full balls. It’s a win for everyone. Let’s also remember, who uses Final Cut Pro (old people on the verge of retirement probably)and who uses Final Cut X. Everyone else. Time moves on.
BS. If it were coming to MacOS then AMD Threadripper and Ryzen would already be here.
How does this statement make any sense? What does AMD have to do with Apple planning to switch to their own ARM chips, AMD using x86/AMD64?
It means Intel is deflecting. Apple needs Thunderbolt, period. It's the only reason they've stuck with Intel after Zen came out. Intel has ZERO threat of ARM supplanting them on the desktop and laptop, never mind the Data Center. They have every concern of AMD and future generations using their superior products for LESS COST.
Apple was ecstatic when Intel announced Thunderbolt would be open sourced. Intel has dragged its feet for nearly 2 years since the announcement and it is still not royalty free and released.
So there is no rational basis for Apple to invest heavily into augmenting their ARM designs for a workstation [Mac Pro], never mind the desktop/laptop [And no iOS is fast because it is very limited in multi-user/multithreaded, multi-core based processing that will be a must on macOS. There are literally hundreds to thousands of processess/threads that are and can be running inside OS X that ARM won't ever supplant what is coming down the pike.
Basic threads and processes on my Macbook Pro 13: 1391 threads, 346 processes. The ARM would get slammed with that and that is nothing when pushing an iMac Pro or Mac Pro.
If you think Apple is going to screw over developers with ARM with the Mac Pro you're effing nuts.
Intel bound Apple when Apple [and as a former NeXT/Apple Engineer I was there] needed a fusion of legitimacy, especially when IBM crapped the bed. At NeXT we made a Quad FAT architecture for the OS because Motorola fucked us over more times than you can imagine on their designs. HP did the same thing. The HP PA-RISC ran circles around x86 at the time. HP did nothing to follow through.
Sun was just a clusterfuck of stupid with regards to the OpenStep initiative. Sun wanted all revenues on the Hardware and to force us to cut the cost of OpenStep licensing. So people were ``shocked'' that didn't take off? Please.
ARM dictates designs. Apple modifies but within those design specs.
You keep believing those pissant benchmarks the mobile world shows as performance figures. Throw 500 processes and 2000 threads at an iPhone and it crashes. There is a reason Apple has very limited subsets of functionality tuned around the tightly coupled hardware constraints.
The Mac Pro is effectively dead. Given that developers really don’t care about architecture as much as the do about performance. It is pretty clear now that ARM has real advantages here. Mainly because they can have cores running at 1-2 watts at hight clock rates than Intel or AMD. This leads to the prospects of a Mac Pro running 50 to 100 cores at far higher cLock rates than can be achieved with x86.
Um no. First, ramp the clock and you ramp power usage. A 3.3Ghz Armv8 draws 125W or around 3.9W/core (32 cores). Intel isn't suffering from low performance to watt...they're just expensive to get the good stuff. If you have to build a server farm would you choose an $800 ARM or an $899 Threadripper or EPYC? That's a no brainer...go AMD and run everything like before. And Intel being $2000 for Xeon really only means that if a price war comes Intel has room to maneuver.
Second, developers do care about architecture as many tools don't run well on Arm. Like almost all of them. That means an Arm desktop is a 2nd tier platform for virtualization, docker, dev tools, infrastructure, driver support, etc. Not to mention major apps will lag just like last time and you lose the ability to run windows apps.
Microsoft has Windows on ARM now, with a 32-bit software compatibility layer, so virtualization or even Windows on top of one of these new machines isn't out of the question
One thing that nobody is talking about though is compatibility with Intel software. Sure Windows and some software will run on A series chips. But what about the Mac software that is coded to run on Intel? Are they going to run a Blue Box/Yellow Box strategy for a while? It took years before all critical software was ported from PPC to Intel. Some never was and there were a fair number of people who refused to update their OS for years after Apple dropped Rosetta, because they did not dare lose the old software they depended on. Any idea what Apple is going to do for them?
There are hold outs in every aspect of life with computing being one of them. The less than 1/1000% of hold outs were never a consideration by Apple or any company when they are making big changes.
wizard69 said:The Mac Pro is effectively dead. Given that developers really don’t care about architecture as much as the do about performance. It is pretty clear now that ARM has real advantages here. Mainly because they can have cores running at 1-2 watts at hight clock rates than Intel or AMD. This leads to the prospects of a Mac Pro running 50 to 100 cores at far higher cLock rates than can be achieved with x86.
Depends on what you are developing. I own a software development company. For my developers who are designing graphical frontends, the CPU architecture does not matter. But my cloud service developers need to run Docker containers at native speed. AWS, Azure and Google Cloud platform are Intel based only. The moment the last Intel based Macs dies, is the moment my cloud service developers can no longer use Macs as a development machine
I'm way out of my lane on what you do, but would it matter if the Intel emulator software speeds of the A-series chips match or exceed those of your current workstations? Seems like a bit of dream given how SoftPC and VirtualPC performed on PPC. Parallels and VMware made Windows development as good as a Windows workstation for me. I am always skeptical of performance claims of new chips, but maybe this will be different.
One thing to consider is that those of us frequenting this website and forum are not representative of Apple's primary customers who are consumers who just want their stuff to work. How it does it in the background means nothing to them as does having a wide selection of applications beyond Safari or Chrome.
Nobody likes change, but I'd rather change and move forward instead of being left holding the bag when the train departs.
If Apple leaves Intel will they survive? Even their modems will be ditched eventually.
I'm sure it'll hurt some, but Apple has been running around 3-10% of PC sales for years now (depending on whose numbers you believe). Intel will probably be fine, at least in this market. This will be more true if Apple's transition produces any software availability or backward compatibility issues, which might hurt corporate Mac sales.
I will only buy a new MacBook once Apple puts in its own chip.There is no reason for a Mac to start at $1200 while better performing iPads are $800.
Your latter statement might be true, but that doesn't mean that Apple will lower the price of the Macs. Quite the opposite if they stick to the pricing trends of recent years.
How many times have we seen companies move manufacturing from the U.S. to China, India or Vietnam and then raise prices anyway. Cost has little to do with it.
So...no more running Windows via Parallels/Fusion?
If so, that would be a major bummer. I need Windows very little these days but there’s always that one application you absolutely need that is Windows-only.
I have given up on VMs mainly as I occasionally need a real GPU. So I bit the bullet and bought a Dell with an i7 and it and my Mac Pro share a monitor. I run it most of the time from my Mac Pro using Microsoft Desktop Remote 10 (which uses all my Mac Pros three monitors and I can swipe between macOS and Windows 10 Pro on any of them) and when I need its GTX 1080 GPU I simply switch the input of the 4K screen that is shared with the Mac Pro. The Mac Pro immediately switch to a two screen set up when I change inputs on the shared one. This set up works flawlessly as long as I remember in that scenario to use the right keyboard and mouse lol (I don't like KVM boxes preferring two keyboards and mice).
BS. If it were coming to MacOS then AMD Threadripper and Ryzen would already be here.
How does this statement make any sense? What does AMD have to do with Apple planning to switch to their own ARM chips, AMD using x86/AMD64?
It means Intel is deflecting. Apple needs Thunderbolt, period. It's the only reason they've stuck with Intel after Zen came out. Intel has ZERO threat of ARM supplanting them on the desktop and laptop, never mind the Data Center. They have every concern of AMD and future generations using their superior products for LESS COST.
Apple was ecstatic when Intel announced Thunderbolt would be open sourced. Intel has dragged its feet for nearly 2 years since the announcement and it is still not royalty free and released.
So there is no rational basis for Apple to invest heavily into augmenting their ARM designs for a workstation [Mac Pro], never mind the desktop/laptop [And no iOS is fast because it is very limited in multi-user/multithreaded, multi-core based processing that will be a must on macOS. There are literally hundreds to thousands of processess/threads that are and can be running inside OS X that ARM won't ever supplant what is coming down the pike.
Basic threads and processes on my Macbook Pro 13: 1391 threads, 346 processes. The ARM would get slammed with that and that is nothing when pushing an iMac Pro or Mac Pro.
If you think Apple is going to screw over developers with ARM with the Mac Pro you're effing nuts.
Intel bound Apple when Apple [and as a former NeXT/Apple Engineer I was there] needed a fusion of legitimacy, especially when IBM crapped the bed. At NeXT we made a Quad FAT architecture for the OS because Motorola fucked us over more times than you can imagine on their designs. HP did the same thing. The HP PA-RISC ran circles around x86 at the time. HP did nothing to follow through.
Sun was just a clusterfuck of stupid with regards to the OpenStep initiative. Sun wanted all revenues on the Hardware and to force us to cut the cost of OpenStep licensing. So people were ``shocked'' that didn't take off? Please.
ARM dictates designs. Apple modifies but within those design specs.
You keep believing those pissant benchmarks the mobile world shows as performance figures. Throw 500 processes and 2000 threads at an iPhone and it crashes. There is a reason Apple has very limited subsets of functionality tuned around the tightly coupled hardware constraints.
Thanks for the insight. So Apple's chips will be augmenting Macs not replacing Intel? Do you see Apple doing anything in the GPU arena?
The biggest companies will. Above Autodesk Absolutely. Others may die. But then there is opportunity with newer players. All the iPad prosumer companies can now go full balls. It’s a win for everyone.
Others won't die, they'll just quit bothering to make Mac versions of their products. Users will just switch to Windows.
Suddenly being presented with a new and almost certainly less capable platform to learn and, most importantly, integrate into a workflow with other contributors, is neither a "win" for me nor a gamble on which I'm willing to bet my livelihood.
Almost nobody. That's a pity because it's a good tool, but the reality is I haven't been sent a project cut on Final Cut in at least five years, maybe longer. I don't know why. My broadcast clients are still using Avid, but my corporate and production company clients are all using Premiere. It seems weird to me, but also cautionary: Big changes may lead to big gains, but if not managed VERY carefully they can also kill you.
Remember also that what may seem like an obscure, unnecessary feature to someone operating at a basic level may be an absolute, deal-breaker, essential requirement for a higher-end facility or operator. It's not as easy as just switching from one application to another. Take away a particular workflow function and dominos start falling all over the place -- asset interchange, collaboration tools, approval systems, delivery streams, integration procedures, versioning management -- any of which can cripple an entire team if not supported properly. If you think anyone is going to risk that kind of investment on a new, unproven, repurposed from iOS app, you're either very cutely naive or certifiably insane!
The biggest companies will. Above Autodesk Absolutely. Others may die. But then there is opportunity with newer players. All the iPad prosumer companies can now go full balls. It’s a win for everyone.
Others won't die, they'll just quit bothering to make Mac versions of their products. Users will just switch to Windows.
Suddenly being presented with a new and almost certainly less capable platform to learn and, most importantly, integrate into a workflow with other contributors, is neither a "win" for me nor a gamble on which I'm willing to bet my livelihood.
Almost nobody. That's a pity because it's a good tool, but the reality is I haven't been sent a project cut on Final Cut in at least five years, maybe longer. I don't know why. My broadcast clients are still using Avid, but my corporate and production company clients are all using Premiere. It seems weird to me, but also cautionary: Big changes may lead to big gains, but if not managed VERY carefully they can also kill you.
Remember also that what may seem like an obscure, unnecessary feature to someone operating at a basic level may be an absolute, deal-breaker, essential requirement for a higher-end facility or operator. It's not as easy as just switching from one application to another. Take away a particular workflow function and dominos start falling all over the place -- asset interchange, collaboration tools, approval systems, delivery streams, integration procedures, versioning management -- any of which can cripple an entire team if not supported properly. If you think anyone is going to risk that kind of investment on a new, unproven, repurposed from iOS app, you're either very cutely naive or certifiably insane!
FCP X and LP X have very large user bases. You don't know shit about either if you think they are insignificant revenue streams. Least you forget, FCP X and LP X are the two highest grossing apps in the AppStore for the respective categories. Each release FCP X keeps accelerating its professional user base. LP X is the gold standard for DAWs.
I know this will sound crazy but I predict that Apple WILL NOT position the A-series as the low-end product, but instead position the A-series as the "High End" product categories.
I think it is already happening with the price of iPad Pros. I think they will retain exclusive features compared to Intel Chips, maybe these will be performance (just look at the current iPad A-series, faster than what 92% of portable computers), or battery life, or specialized application support, or maybe it will just be a spec advantage, like more Ram or thinner products.
Now this could fail, and I could be 100% wrong about how they position the A-series as premium but I find it very hard to believe they would make a transition unless 1. The A-series is better than Intel. and if that is true then why make it a value low-profit product??
Agreed. And if the power is indeed better than the Intel chips, i would expect low volume niche machines like the new Mac Pro to be the test bed for these chips and both prove themselves and scale to consumers via that model.
I can't imagine they would risk upsetting the Mac Pro users with an ARM chip. Yes it's a small percentage of people comparatively but I feel like they might possibly carry the most weight on a per-user basis. I would guess many of them work in a production environment thus influencing a business or team on what the company should be outfitted with for their workflow.
IF...and that’s a big IF, they are getting far better performance do you think anyone would get upset? On the contrary, I would imagine people shifting over. But granted, that all the depends on the power of these supposed new chips. But the new iPad Pros are pretty FN good already.
Yah I suppose anyone would be happy with BETTER performance. I just don't know how the ARM's would stack up against something like an 18-core Xeon chip, or even a multi-CPU configuration. Many of the Pro users are in a production environment so stability is key, I'm not sure the "typical" applications they run exist and perform the same way in the ARM architecture.
The biggest companies will. Above Autodesk Absolutely. Others may die. But then there is opportunity with newer players. All the iPad prosumer companies can now go full balls. It’s a win for everyone.
Others won't die, they'll just quit bothering to make Mac versions of their products. Users will just switch to Windows.
Suddenly being presented with a new and almost certainly less capable platform to learn and, most importantly, integrate into a workflow with other contributors, is neither a "win" for me nor a gamble on which I'm willing to bet my livelihood.
Almost nobody. That's a pity because it's a good tool, but the reality is I haven't been sent a project cut on Final Cut in at least five years, maybe longer. I don't know why. My broadcast clients are still using Avid, but my corporate and production company clients are all using Premiere. It seems weird to me, but also cautionary: Big changes may lead to big gains, but if not managed VERY carefully they can also kill you.
Remember also that what may seem like an obscure, unnecessary feature to someone operating at a basic level may be an absolute, deal-breaker, essential requirement for a higher-end facility or operator. It's not as easy as just switching from one application to another. Take away a particular workflow function and dominos start falling all over the place -- asset interchange, collaboration tools, approval systems, delivery streams, integration procedures, versioning management -- any of which can cripple an entire team if not supported properly. If you think anyone is going to risk that kind of investment on a new, unproven, repurposed from iOS app, you're either very cutely naive or certifiably insane!
FCP X and LP X have very large user bases. You don't know shit about either if you think they are insignificant revenue streams. Least you forget, FCP X and LP X are the two highest grossing apps in the AppStore for the respective categories. Each release FCP X keeps accelerating its professional user base. LP X is the gold standard for DAWs.
I have no idea how your response relates to what i wrote. I've re-read both my comment and your response three times, and I just don't get what has you so upset.
Who said anything about revenue streams? I have no idea how well either app sells and didn't comment on that. I don't even understand what that metric has to do with the subject, which was how making life difficult for suppliers of pro software may not be a good move for Apple. qwwera brought up FCPX, not me. I responded with my own experience in the industry, which is that FCPX does not appear to be widely used in the market segment I serve. Don't blame me for it being news you don't like. I don't decide which editing software they use.
I also don't know when we started discussing Logic, but since you brought it up, yeah, it's a great app. Excellent for music production. Less excellent for editing and post. Highly regarded, but at present not the Gold Standard. That status goes to Pro Tools.
I know this will sound crazy but I predict that Apple WILL NOT position the A-series as the low-end product, but instead position the A-series as the "High End" product categories.
I think it is already happening with the price of iPad Pros. I think they will retain exclusive features compared to Intel Chips, maybe these will be performance (just look at the current iPad A-series, faster than what 92% of portable computers), or battery life, or specialized application support, or maybe it will just be a spec advantage, like more Ram or thinner products.
Now this could fail, and I could be 100% wrong about how they position the A-series as premium but I find it very hard to believe they would make a transition unless 1. The A-series is better than Intel. and if that is true then why make it a value low-profit product??
The A-series processor handles SMP a little differently than the Intel does, so that's the basis behind the suspicion about the lower end of the product line that needs more in the way of single-processor computing, versus hammering all the cores simultaneously with one task.
That doesnt make sense: (OS) software (libraries) distribute tasks; the kernel GCD and OpenCL (or its Metal replacements) to be more specific. The exact nature of the hardware is abstracted away, thats why you have operating systems.
I would imagine everyone wants better performance, I just don't see the ARM chips stacking up to something like an 18-core Xeon, or even a multi-cpu configuration. The Pro users typically work in a production environment so stability is everything, I'm not sure that the "typical" applications they are running have the same offerings for the ARM architecture(at least not yet).
Multiplying cores on one die is relatively easy (just copy and past it in your favorite HDL language), also current ARM designs are 8 core or more, so thats no biggie. Multi discrete chips (CPUs) is a motherboard/busses ‘problem’ at which Apple is very proficient. Not sure what you mean with stability, there is no reason to suspect ARM chips are different, stability depends on the chip production process (and VHDL design) and it seems that TSMC is way ahead (compared to Intel) with a 5nm feature size. Applications when build for the Mac, can be rebuild with one click, just choose the ARM-Mac target architecture.
Comments
The argument was that Apple should begin the transition to ARM with it's professional line. I'm saying I disagree.
There's no point in Apple producing a machine its intended market won't buy, hence it may not be a good idea for Apple to start the move to ARM at the high end. Users of entry level machines are less likely to be inextricably attached to specific systems and titles in which they have a sizeable investment. Thus I think the low end is a safer place to begin the switch.
The PPC to Intel transition occurred in 2006. iMac in Feb 2006, Mac Pro in Fall 2006. Less than one year to release the hardware. But Jobs said that Apple had been running OSX on Intel for 5 years in 2005 when the transition was announced.
if the Pro market is dead, then Apple doesn’t need Pro developers if there are iOS developers galore. But Apple negotiates behind the scenes with developers for years before a launch like this.
On day one, there will be major apps to support ARM on MacBook if they are needed. The average Consumer doesn’t care about chips or architectures.
Say goodbye to RAM upgrades, SSDs, etc. The age of iPad-like MacBooks will be upon us.
I’m not afraid.
Oh, it’s gonna be expensive.
Let’s also remember, who uses Final Cut Pro (old people on the verge of retirement probably)and who uses Final Cut X. Everyone else. Time moves on.
Second, developers do care about architecture as many tools don't run well on Arm. Like almost all of them. That means an Arm desktop is a 2nd tier platform for virtualization, docker, dev tools, infrastructure, driver support, etc. Not to mention major apps will lag just like last time and you lose the ability to run windows apps.
I'm way out of my lane on what you do, but would it matter if the Intel emulator software speeds of the A-series chips match or exceed those of your current workstations? Seems like a bit of dream given how SoftPC and VirtualPC performed on PPC. Parallels and VMware made Windows development as good as a Windows workstation for me. I am always skeptical of performance claims of new chips, but maybe this will be different.
Nobody likes change, but I'd rather change and move forward instead of being left holding the bag when the train departs.
How many times have we seen companies move manufacturing from the U.S. to China, India or Vietnam and then raise prices anyway. Cost has little to do with it.
Suddenly being presented with a new and almost certainly less capable platform to learn and, most importantly, integrate into a workflow with other contributors, is neither a "win" for me nor a gamble on which I'm willing to bet my livelihood.
Nobody.
Almost nobody. That's a pity because it's a good tool, but the reality is I haven't been sent a project cut on Final Cut in at least five years, maybe longer. I don't know why. My broadcast clients are still using Avid, but my corporate and production company clients are all using Premiere. It seems weird to me, but also cautionary: Big changes may lead to big gains, but if not managed VERY carefully they can also kill you.
Remember also that what may seem like an obscure, unnecessary feature to someone operating at a basic level may be an absolute, deal-breaker, essential requirement for a higher-end facility or operator. It's not as easy as just switching from one application to another. Take away a particular workflow function and dominos start falling all over the place -- asset interchange, collaboration tools, approval systems, delivery streams, integration procedures, versioning management -- any of which can cripple an entire team if not supported properly. If you think anyone is going to risk that kind of investment on a new, unproven, repurposed from iOS app, you're either very cutely naive or certifiably insane!
Who said anything about revenue streams? I have no idea how well either app sells and didn't comment on that. I don't even understand what that metric has to do with the subject, which was how making life difficult for suppliers of pro software may not be a good move for Apple. qwwera brought up FCPX, not me. I responded with my own experience in the industry, which is that FCPX does not appear to be widely used in the market segment I serve. Don't blame me for it being news you don't like. I don't decide which editing software they use.
I also don't know when we started discussing Logic, but since you brought it up, yeah, it's a great app. Excellent for music production. Less excellent for editing and post. Highly regarded, but at present not the Gold Standard. That status goes to Pro Tools.
Multiplying cores on one die is relatively easy (just copy and past it in your favorite HDL language), also current ARM designs are 8 core or more, so thats no biggie. Multi discrete chips (CPUs) is a motherboard/busses ‘problem’ at which Apple is very proficient.
Not sure what you mean with stability, there is no reason to suspect ARM chips are different, stability depends on the chip production process (and VHDL design) and it seems that TSMC is way ahead (compared to Intel) with a 5nm feature size.
Applications when build for the Mac, can be rebuild with one click, just choose the ARM-Mac target architecture.