"Mac shifting to ARM may come as soon as ..." ... ore more likely, it may not. It's a dumb idea that breaks the Windows compatibility that has been Apple's hook into bringing people over from the dark side, and will involve huge amounts of angst for everyone, with no 'noticeable' difference (other than your software won't work). By noticeable, it needs to run 40 times faster for anyone to care.
Oh really... More and more applications/softwares no longer required to run natively on Windows machines over the last 5 years or so. In case you have not noticed, more and more software powerhouses are moving towards cloud and subscription-based applications. If so, is there seriously as heavy-dependent on Windows OS as it used to be?
Just quoting a yester-year concept - Thin Clients. That concept was too early but doesn't mean wrong concept. Now with subscription-based applications like Office 365, Adobe Creative suit, etc etc...It is now time to jump forward in that thin client concept and move away from cumbersome architecture which is not optimal and wasting energy for less usefulness. Seriously, how often do you even see you Intel multi-cores processor working pass 20% for 80% of time you are using the desktop/laptop? Yet have most people bothered to observe how much power consumption is a Intel-based desktop/laptop squandering away?
Honestly, I wish I am using an iMac or MacBook Pro (either of which I am using daily) which has the power efficiency of my iPhone or iPad and help reduce my ever growing electricity bill (due to tariff increases regularly every quarter or few quarters).
In my humble opinion, it is almost the right time to jump and leap frog away. The success of iOS apps is helping to make it possible to jump and leap frog away. The success of ARM-based processors which iOS/tvOS/watchOS apps are coded to run on is helping to make it possible to jump and leap frog away. And the new era of subscription-based softwares/applications further endorsed the fate of architecture change being inevitable within 1-3 years.
You really forgot the people who use Mac without macOS. There are many people who buy Mac for the quality of the hardware but not the OS like the rest of us, eg academics and science people who run Linux and programer who only uses windows.
They don’t card how nice is MacOS. As long as they can run their OS of choice smoothly. it will be fine for them. I have seen Microsoft guys used Mac with Windows in major demo. I am sure Jobs and Tim won’t mind it a bit. But I don’t think they will stay with Mac if Apple switch to ARM. Why risk the trouble to run non native system? When wintel base system improved greatly improved greatly in recent years.
I don’t know if Tim kept this running, but one of the things Steve was insistent on after that Intel transition was that OS X be as portable as possible. That’s why iOS was (relatively) easy to make as a subset of OS X.
You can bet very good money on the idea that in some lab somewhere in Cupertino, there are Macs already running macOS on ARM processors ... and other processors as a backup plan. Luck favours the prepared, and Apple under Jobs never ever wanted to be caught flat-footed. Given that the core of macOS and iOS is still UNIX, and UNIX can run on basically anything, I think they are well-prepared for the future.
Correct me if I'm wrong or it has already been said here but wouldn't a jump to ARM mean it would open macOS to iOS Apps or at least make it much easier to port them over to the mac? That would definitely counter the argument that developers would have a hard time to reprogram everything. As stated in the article Apple is already making moves to bring iOS Apps to macOS and with ARM, iOS developers would have the benefit of 2 platforms. And with already the vast availability of Apps for Mac there are very few people who actually need windows anymore. It's actually a very brilliant move by Apple.
I don’t know if Tim kept this running, but one of the things Steve was insistent on after that Intel transition was that OS X be as portable as possible. That’s why iOS was (relatively) easy to make as a subset of OS X.
You can bet very good money on the idea that in some lab somewhere in Cupertino, there are Macs already running macOS on ARM processors ... and other processors as a backup plan. Luck favours the prepared, and Apple under Jobs never ever wanted to be caught flat-footed. Given that the core of macOS and iOS is still UNIX, and UNIX can run on basically anything, I think they are well-prepared for the future.
The question must be what "interesting" other CPU's Apple have in the Lab?
Do they have secret test projects from Intel, AMD others that might not be known outside of rumours.
If Apple does make this jump, would it jump all its macOS hardware platforms at the same time, or would it run a trial balloon first on a single platform to gauge public interest? Which platform has the least number of users running Windows? Would that be the Mac Mini or maybe the MacBook Air? Or could the new ARM platform be a brand new Mac device, perhaps called the Mac Air? I would propose that the Mac Air drop any space for HDDs, drop most connectors, and even use AirPlay2 for its video output. With an ARM CPU it could also omit the fan, just like the iPhone does. Physically it would be smaller than an iPhone and would be powered by a USB-C or Lightning cable. Maybe in lieu of an iPhone "screen" it could be powered by a solar panel and that would be called "a wireless power source" in which case it would have no physical ports at all, not unlike the Apple Watch. Or it could be powered by a new wireless power system. Hey, I know 80% of my ideas are bad, but that's still not 100%.
I suspect it will move from the bottom, up, and migrate to the high-end when the market demands.
I’m more curious about whether they’ll announcing it at this year or not.
I don’t know if Tim kept this running, but one of the things Steve was insistent on after that Intel transition was that OS X be as portable as possible. That’s why iOS was (relatively) easy to make as a subset of OS X.
You can bet very good money on the idea that in some lab somewhere in Cupertino, there are Macs already running macOS on ARM processors ... and other processors as a backup plan. Luck favours the prepared, and Apple under Jobs never ever wanted to be caught flat-footed. Given that the core of macOS and iOS is still UNIX, and UNIX can run on basically anything, I think they are well-prepared for the future.
I’m sure that Geekbench sample is true. Heck, I thought the Core M were designed to replace ultrabooks and become the next-gen consumer laptops, but they hit the wall, and now more like an after thought.
If they can beat an i9-HK and keep it fanless, that’s very impressive. Even if they can’t, it’s not a shame either, because trading 1/10 of its performance for 1/2 the size and power, and noisy fans aren’t bad deal.
Just a side point: if you do a technical analysis, and not a market analysis, you should trace the history of NeXTSTEP, and not the history of the Mac.
The more you go inside MacOS X, the more you find the NeXTSTEP origin, up to its BSD+Mach kernel.
So the history of platform changes of NeXTSTEP is more interesting in terms of the technical potential of such a change.
And the truth is, NeXTSTEP is a multi platform system from the beginning, based on portable code: in its early days, it moved from 680xx to the Motorola 88k risc family, then to Intel, PA-RISC and SPARC. With Apple, it moved to PowerPC, it become MacOS X, it moved back to Intel, and then, under some form, to ARM, as the basis for iOS and tvOS.
And these are just the commercially available version; i am sure that in the labs there were and there are more.
Other technical point: no, most of the modern application will not need a big effort; modern software technologies are a lot less platform dependent, even in performance oriented code (after all, how many developers have the faintest idea of how the intel processors works internally ?). My personal bet is than in more than 95% of the cases,
porting will be as hard as clicking on "Build" on XCode. Remember that the iOS development environment compile and run the iOS application code on intel processors.
Of course, than you need a big testing phase.
And of course, it is still possible to write platform dependent code, and somebody if forced to do it; but as long as the compiler is the same, it will not be a problem for most of the developers.
What a strange article. Somewhat of revisionist history to suggest that Apple's architecture moves were made because Apple was on the bleeding edge and needed new processors to push the limits. In reality their reliance on technology that in the end, just couldn't keep up with Intel. x86 has been around since the late 70s, ARM since the mid-80s. I don't know how moving from one old technology to another old technology can be considered a 10 year lifespan. In 1988 there is no way Steve Jobs envisioned the current computing environment. Just take a look at what the top 500 super computers are running...
The author states that the transition will be difficult for developers, as it was in the PPC to Intel transition, but will it really be nearly as difficult? No transition to Xcode is required as it was then as it has long been the only option, and they have deprecated the use of other programming languages other than their own Obj-C and Swift. Apple also controls the compiler tech they use, and has long discouraged developers from working outside their development stack. Could it be that the "click this button" to create a universal binary, while exaggerating the ease of transition 13 years ago, would now actually work without any source code updates?
The problem with Apple's ARM implementation is that it is designed from the ground up around power efficiency. You simply don't care about that on the desktop. That's why they released the iMac Pro with a large intel processor. They might be getting close to desktop chips from a few years ago now with the A12 bionic, but close isn't anywhere near good enough to change https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/06/arm-promises-laptop-level-performance-in-2019/?comments=1 .
What a strange article. Somewhat of revisionist history to suggest that Apple's architecture moves were made because Apple was on the bleeding edge and needed new processors to push the limits. In reality their reliance on technology that in the end, just couldn't keep up with Intel. x86 has been around since the late 70s, ARM since the mid-80s. I don't know how moving from one old technology to another old technology can be considered a 10 year lifespan. In 1988 there is no way Steve Jobs envisioned the current computing environment. Just take a look at what the top 500 super computers are running...
Not a fan I presume.
I am a fan of technology. I don't hold any sort of undying loyalty to any brand. I'm sure every brand has its apologists but just weird to read this as if all of these platform changes were part of some sort of multi-decade master plan.
The problem with Apple's ARM implementation is that it is designed from the ground up around power efficiency. You simply don't care about that on the desktop. That's why they released the iMac Pro with a large intel processor. They might be getting close to desktop chips from a few years ago now with the A12 bionic, but close isn't anywhere near good enough to change https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/06/arm-promises-laptop-level-performance-in-2019/?comments=1 .
1) All chips care about power efficiency. The current Intel chips used in the iMac are able to perform as high as they can because of efforts to make them power efficient which helps reduce heat. Without these decades of effort many other aspects of the iMac would be much slower and much larger, which includes the iMac enclosure itself.
2) Would you look at the S-seres chip in the Apple Watch and then conclude that Apple could never make an iPhone or iPad because the S-series chip isn't powerful enough for those applications? Of course not, so why assume that Apple isn't focusing on larger, faster chips that produce considerably more heat simply because they have an A-series chip that is idealized for the small, portable, finless environment of their handhelds?
The problem with Apple's ARM implementation is that it is designed from the ground up around power efficiency. You simply don't care about that on the desktop. That's why they released the iMac Pro with a large intel processor. They might be getting close to desktop chips from a few years ago now with the A12 bionic, but close isn't anywhere near good enough to change https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/06/arm-promises-laptop-level-performance-in-2019/?comments=1 .
1) All chips care about power efficiency. The current Intel chips used in the iMac are able to perform as high as they can because of efforts to make them power efficient which helps reduce heat. Without these decades of effort many other aspects of the iMac would be much slower and much larger, which includes the iMac enclosure itself.
2) Would you look at the S-seres chip in the Apple Watch and then conclude that Apple could never make an iPhone or iPad because the S-series chip isn't powerful enough for those applications? Of course not, so why assume that Apple isn't focusing on larger, faster chips that produce considerably more heat simply because they have an A-series chip that is idealized for the small, portable, finless environment of their handhelds?
The emphasis on the desktop is performance, performance and performance. intel considers 150 watts TPD to be easy to handle. They just unveiled their latest Xeon W-3175X processor, with 28 cores at 255 watts TPD https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-xeon-w-3175x-cpu-specs,37899.html . It starts at 3.1 Ghz and tops out at 4.3 Ghz. AMD's latest offerings seem to be a bit faster. I wouldn't be surprised if the rumors base was Apple going with AMD for some of their machines.
The problem with Apple's ARM implementation is that it is designed from the ground up around power efficiency. You simply don't care about that on the desktop. That's why they released the iMac Pro with a large intel processor. They might be getting close to desktop chips from a few years ago now with the A12 bionic, but close isn't anywhere near good enough to change https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/06/arm-promises-laptop-level-performance-in-2019/?comments=1 .
1) All chips care about power efficiency. The current Intel chips used in the iMac are able to perform as high as they can because of efforts to make them power efficient which helps reduce heat. Without these decades of effort many other aspects of the iMac would be much slower and much larger, which includes the iMac enclosure itself.
2) Would you look at the S-seres chip in the Apple Watch and then conclude that Apple could never make an iPhone or iPad because the S-series chip isn't powerful enough for those applications? Of course not, so why assume that Apple isn't focusing on larger, faster chips that produce considerably more heat simply because they have an A-series chip that is idealized for the small, portable, finless environment of their handhelds?
The emphasis on the desktop is performance, performance and performance. intel considers 150 watts TPD to be easy to handle. They just unveiled their latest Xeon W-3175X processor, with 28 cores at 255 watts TPD https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-xeon-w-3175x-cpu-specs,37899.html . It starts at 3.1 Ghz and tops out at 4.3 Ghz. AMD's latest offerings seem to be a bit faster. I wouldn't be surprised if the rumors base was Apple going with AMD for some of their machines.
The problem with Apple's ARM implementation is that it is designed from the ground up around power efficiency. You simply don't care about that on the desktop. That's why they released the iMac Pro with a large intel processor. They might be getting close to desktop chips from a few years ago now with the A12 bionic, but close isn't anywhere near good enough to change https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/06/arm-promises-laptop-level-performance-in-2019/?comments=1 .
1) All chips care about power efficiency. The current Intel chips used in the iMac are able to perform as high as they can because of efforts to make them power efficient which helps reduce heat. Without these decades of effort many other aspects of the iMac would be much slower and much larger, which includes the iMac enclosure itself.
2) Would you look at the S-seres chip in the Apple Watch and then conclude that Apple could never make an iPhone or iPad because the S-series chip isn't powerful enough for those applications? Of course not, so why assume that Apple isn't focusing on larger, faster chips that produce considerably more heat simply because they have an A-series chip that is idealized for the small, portable, finless environment of their handhelds?
The emphasis on the desktop is performance, performance and performance. intel considers 150 watts TPD to be easy to handle. They just unveiled their latest Xeon W-3175X processor, with 28 cores at 255 watts TPD https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-xeon-w-3175x-cpu-specs,37899.html . It starts at 3.1 Ghz and tops out at 4.3 Ghz. AMD's latest offerings seem to be a bit faster. I wouldn't be surprised if the rumors base was Apple going with AMD for some of their machines.
All chips are designed with as much performance as possible within a given constraints, like heat and energy usage. Even in a tower, you balance all the components needs for energy usage so you can determine the ideal PSU to use, as well as how much heat is being given off for a variety of reasons. Power is never something you "don't care about" and the iMac using many desktop-grade components within an ultra-thin enclosure is not some lone exception.
Apple doesn’t need to do much to shift, because of work that was done over 10 years back. LLVM and CLANG are the foundations of pretty much every single piece of software running on the Mac for over 10 years now. So all anyone has to do, is to simply recompile their apps from Xcode - and it should work perfectly fine on literally any processor platform you want.
that being said, I believe there is a reason Apple introduced the MacBook once again into the lineup. This will likely be a trail balloon that will be switched to ARM first.
also, for the typical user, almost all the software running on a Mac already comes from the AppStore, and probably is all built by Apple. Which means the shift can be enforced with some AppStore guidelines - all apps submitted after X date must include ARM targets.
The environment today is quite different from when Apple made the last switch, to Intel. And it’s going to be a lot easier to switch this time around.
also, the primary reason for the switch is going to be cost and power savings - which means lower battery capacity and hence lower cost. Apple will either jack up its margins or use the lower prices to increase market share. Either way, this is a strategy that makes a lot of sense for Apple, and only an idiot wouldn’t see it coming.
at the real high end also, I think Intel’s days are numbered. ARM is pretty much there already, and can already be run way faster than on battery powered devices, if wired power is available.
The problem with Apple's ARM implementation is that it is designed from the ground up around power efficiency. You simply don't care about that on the desktop. That's why they released the iMac Pro with a large intel processor. They might be getting close to desktop chips from a few years ago now with the A12 bionic, but close isn't anywhere near good enough to change https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/06/arm-promises-laptop-level-performance-in-2019/?comments=1 .
1) All chips care about power efficiency. The current Intel chips used in the iMac are able to perform as high as they can because of efforts to make them power efficient which helps reduce heat. Without these decades of effort many other aspects of the iMac would be much slower and much larger, which includes the iMac enclosure itself.
2) Would you look at the S-seres chip in the Apple Watch and then conclude that Apple could never make an iPhone or iPad because the S-series chip isn't powerful enough for those applications? Of course not, so why assume that Apple isn't focusing on larger, faster chips that produce considerably more heat simply because they have an A-series chip that is idealized for the small, portable, finless environment of their handhelds?
The emphasis on the desktop is performance, performance and performance. intel considers 150 watts TPD to be easy to handle. They just unveiled their latest Xeon W-3175X processor, with 28 cores at 255 watts TPD https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-xeon-w-3175x-cpu-specs,37899.html . It starts at 3.1 Ghz and tops out at 4.3 Ghz. AMD's latest offerings seem to be a bit faster. I wouldn't be surprised if the rumors base was Apple going with AMD for some of their machines.
All chips are designed with as much performance as possible within a given constraints, like heat and energy usage. Even in a tower, you balance all the components needs for energy usage so you can determine the ideal PSU to use, as well as how much heat is being given off for a variety of reasons. Power is never something you "don't care about" and the iMac using many desktop-grade components within an ultra-thin enclosure is not some lone exception.
Put it simple, if I can get the work done the same speed with less than half the power, then it’s going to be a win for me in every way. I have less requirements for the same tasks, or much faster with same requirements.
That’s what we saw on Apple’s current architecture, where also Intel and former PowerPC fails at. Even if someone states that power consumption is not their concern, it still affects them without knowing it.
There's this misconception that an Apple Mac based on ARM is going to use the same chipset as the mobile lineup. This is not true and will not happen. ARM is a scalable architecture. Apple's going to design and build their own Desktop Class ARM processors that would be too large or hot to be put in an iOS device. Think in terms of an Apple ARM processor that approaches Ampere's offerings
The problem with Apple's ARM implementation is that it is designed from the ground up around power efficiency. You simply don't care about that on the desktop. That's why they released the iMac Pro with a large intel processor. They might be getting close to desktop chips from a few years ago now with the A12 bionic, but close isn't anywhere near good enough to change https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/06/arm-promises-laptop-level-performance-in-2019/?comments=1 .
1) All chips care about power efficiency. The current Intel chips used in the iMac are able to perform as high as they can because of efforts to make them power efficient which helps reduce heat. Without these decades of effort many other aspects of the iMac would be much slower and much larger, which includes the iMac enclosure itself.
2) Would you look at the S-seres chip in the Apple Watch and then conclude that Apple could never make an iPhone or iPad because the S-series chip isn't powerful enough for those applications? Of course not, so why assume that Apple isn't focusing on larger, faster chips that produce considerably more heat simply because they have an A-series chip that is idealized for the small, portable, finless environment of their handhelds?
The emphasis on the desktop is performance, performance and performance. intel considers 150 watts TPD to be easy to handle. They just unveiled their latest Xeon W-3175X processor, with 28 cores at 255 watts TPD https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-xeon-w-3175x-cpu-specs,37899.html . It starts at 3.1 Ghz and tops out at 4.3 Ghz. AMD's latest offerings seem to be a bit faster. I wouldn't be surprised if the rumors base was Apple going with AMD for some of their machines.
All chips are designed with as much performance as possible within a given constraints, like heat and energy usage. Even in a tower, you balance all the components needs for energy usage so you can determine the ideal PSU to use, as well as how much heat is being given off for a variety of reasons. Power is never something you "don't care about" and the iMac using many desktop-grade components within an ultra-thin enclosure is not some lone exception.
Put it simple, if I can get the work done the same speed with less than half the power, then it’s going to be a win for me in every way. I have less requirements for the same tasks, or much faster with same requirements.
That’s what we saw on Apple’s current architecture, where also Intel and former PowerPC fails at. Even if someone states that power consumption is not their concern, it still affects them without knowing it.
You aren't ever going to get the same speed at half the power, unless you are comparing a current processor to something that is obsolete. Within reason, power consumption is not a concern if you are talking about a high performance workstation (i.e. mac pro). I mean obviously it is beneficial to have a processor that is efficient, but keeping the processor under a certain TPD is secondary to its performance. People are comparing apples to oranges when they think that Apple's success in the mobile processor market will somehow translate into the desktop. The apps that run on ios only perform a small subset of what full blown enterprise applications run.
The problem with Apple's ARM implementation is that it is designed from the ground up around power efficiency. You simply don't care about that on the desktop. That's why they released the iMac Pro with a large intel processor. They might be getting close to desktop chips from a few years ago now with the A12 bionic, but close isn't anywhere near good enough to change https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/06/arm-promises-laptop-level-performance-in-2019/?comments=1 .
1) All chips care about power efficiency. The current Intel chips used in the iMac are able to perform as high as they can because of efforts to make them power efficient which helps reduce heat. Without these decades of effort many other aspects of the iMac would be much slower and much larger, which includes the iMac enclosure itself.
2) Would you look at the S-seres chip in the Apple Watch and then conclude that Apple could never make an iPhone or iPad because the S-series chip isn't powerful enough for those applications? Of course not, so why assume that Apple isn't focusing on larger, faster chips that produce considerably more heat simply because they have an A-series chip that is idealized for the small, portable, finless environment of their handhelds?
The emphasis on the desktop is performance, performance and performance. intel considers 150 watts TPD to be easy to handle. They just unveiled their latest Xeon W-3175X processor, with 28 cores at 255 watts TPD https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-xeon-w-3175x-cpu-specs,37899.html . It starts at 3.1 Ghz and tops out at 4.3 Ghz. AMD's latest offerings seem to be a bit faster. I wouldn't be surprised if the rumors base was Apple going with AMD for some of their machines.
All chips are designed with as much performance as possible within a given constraints, like heat and energy usage. Even in a tower, you balance all the components needs for energy usage so you can determine the ideal PSU to use, as well as how much heat is being given off for a variety of reasons. Power is never something you "don't care about" and the iMac using many desktop-grade components within an ultra-thin enclosure is not some lone exception.
Put it simple, if I can get the work done the same speed with less than half the power, then it’s going to be a win for me in every way. I have less requirements for the same tasks, or much faster with same requirements.
That’s what we saw on Apple’s current architecture, where also Intel and former PowerPC fails at. Even if someone states that power consumption is not their concern, it still affects them without knowing it.
You aren't ever going to get the same speed at half the power, unless you are comparing a current processor to something that is obsolete. Within reason, power consumption is not a concern if you are talking about a high performance workstation (i.e. mac pro). I mean obviously it is beneficial to have a processor that is efficient, but keeping the processor under a certain TPD is secondary to its performance. People are comparing apples to oranges when they think that Apple's success in the mobile processor market will somehow translate into the desktop. The apps that run on ios only perform a small subset of what full blown enterprise applications run.
Comments
They don’t card how nice is MacOS. As long as they can run their OS of choice smoothly. it will be fine for them. I have seen Microsoft guys used Mac with Windows in major demo. I am sure Jobs and Tim won’t mind it a bit. But I don’t think they will stay with Mac if Apple switch to ARM. Why risk the trouble to run non native system? When wintel base system improved greatly improved greatly in recent years.
You can bet very good money on the idea that in some lab somewhere in Cupertino, there are Macs already running macOS on ARM processors ... and other processors as a backup plan. Luck favours the prepared, and Apple under Jobs never ever wanted to be caught flat-footed. Given that the core of macOS and iOS is still UNIX, and UNIX can run on basically anything, I think they are well-prepared for the future.
As stated in the article Apple is already making moves to bring iOS Apps to macOS and with ARM, iOS developers would have the benefit of 2 platforms. And with already the vast availability of Apps for Mac there are very few people who actually need windows anymore.
It's actually a very brilliant move by Apple.
Heck, I thought the Core M were designed to replace ultrabooks and become the next-gen consumer laptops, but they hit the wall, and now more like an after thought.
If they can beat an i9-HK and keep it fanless, that’s very impressive. Even if they can’t, it’s not a shame either, because trading 1/10 of its performance for 1/2 the size and power, and noisy fans aren’t bad deal.
2) Would you look at the S-seres chip in the Apple Watch and then conclude that Apple could never make an iPhone or iPad because the S-series chip isn't powerful enough for those applications? Of course not, so why assume that Apple isn't focusing on larger, faster chips that produce considerably more heat simply because they have an A-series chip that is idealized for the small, portable, finless environment of their handhelds?
that being said, I believe there is a reason Apple introduced the MacBook once again into the lineup. This will likely be a trail balloon that will be switched to ARM first.
also, for the typical user, almost all the software running on a Mac already comes from the AppStore, and probably is all built by Apple. Which means the shift can be enforced with some AppStore guidelines - all apps submitted after X date must include ARM targets.
The environment today is quite different from when Apple made the last switch, to Intel. And it’s going to be a lot easier to switch this time around.
also, the primary reason for the switch is going to be cost and power savings - which means lower battery capacity and hence lower cost. Apple will either jack up its margins or use the lower prices to increase market share. Either way, this is a strategy that makes a lot of sense for Apple, and only an idiot wouldn’t see it coming.
at the real high end also, I think Intel’s days are numbered. ARM is pretty much there already, and can already be run way faster than on battery powered devices, if wired power is available.
That’s what we saw on Apple’s current architecture, where also Intel and former PowerPC fails at. Even if someone states that power consumption is not their concern, it still affects them without knowing it.
https://amperecomputing.com/product/