I'm still thinking that Apple are going to move their MacOS front-end to ARM, and keep x86 for back-end and heavy lifting. I think the new Mac Pro could fit into this quite well. You have a Mac Pro in a rack that presents processing as a service, while users access it using a MacOS (or iOS/iPadOS) front-end. With proper integration, this would be seamless to the user, the only difference is that heavy processing load won't kill the front-end machine, and let the user keep working.
Under this idea, the back-end can be migrated to any architecture without affecting the user, and on any schedule. Especially if Apple host the back-end services, at least for individuals and low-demand users. High-demand users would have the option to buy their own Mac Pro/Server config.
Still, what do I know? No more than any of the analysts saying ARM based Mac Pros are coming any time soon.
If by backend you mean their server farms etc they are already using x86 except not on Mac OS Server. Its mostly linux, as far as I know. If you mean that people have to buy two machines, not going to happen. If you mean that some processing power and not just storage is taken from the device to server side, that's already happening now with Siri, some NLP and some other machine learning api but again it doesn't need a Mac on the backend. Macs are too expensive for Apple for their backend work.
Most people are talking about the actual device when they talk about a shift to ARM. I think Apple may chance their arm on an ARM processor ( pun intended) but it will just be exploratory. No reason to do it unless they get better performance at that price range, and while I know how the software stack works on the Mac pretty well, I can't really talk about how the chips scale up from low power to high power.
Booting into Windows is important to some people of course, but Apple will know the exact statistics on that.
I expect the first ARMacs to be portables. Unless Apple scales up the cores and goes crazy with parallel processing.
What I'd like to see is ARM running Intel apps through emulation (especially old 32-bit apps).
What would be really cool would be ARM running old PPC apps, OS9, or even 680x0. We can dream, can't we?
That would be a waste of engineering effort. Btw if you lit a fire under the developers of the 32bit apps they could port to 64 bit and to ARM ( if necessary) in less than a day, if their architecture is clean.
Apple is NOT abandoning x86 architecture for Mac! More likely you will see iPad get faster with more Mac-like features. The the upcoming versions, of iPadOS and MacOS are very similar and are only likely to become more so over time. That's why Apple is continuing to invest in it's own ARM designs.
This is what I also think will happen. macOS / x86 will stick around for "legacy" workflows & iPadOS / ARM for "modern" workflows
And also modern furniture. Panels kiosks everywhere... The initial Surface “Table” has only promoted Hawaii Five-0 and evolved to a stupid folding AIO Desktop. It is not unusual you see a crashed kiosk somewhere asking Windows admin password. Consider iPad evolved to a wallPad. Needs a powerful chip to drive such a big display, ML/AI and alike. The future is iPad, not Mac.
The future for most people who want to get real work done is Mac, not iPad. The iPad has its uses though, largely for people who mostly consume content.
Apple doesn’t think so. Neither software giants like Adobe, Autodesk, Microsoft, IBM, SAP...
My 27” iMac 14,2 (late 2013) is getting long in the tooth but I will not wait until the latter half of 2020 to find out if Macs are moving to ARM. The 2019 iMac may be my last Intel Mac but I don’t really care.
Really? My 27" iMac (11,1 late 2009) is still chugging along just fine. Although it is stuck on High Sierra - the first time I've ever owned a Mac that doesn't have the latest OS.
Great hire! This guy has some big chops, AMD, INTEL, and ARM! Just watch what’s coming!
Possible in-house x64 based CPUs?
Dito (10,1) here, but running on the latest macOS, its a bit of an hassle but look at dosdude1: http://dosdude1.com/mojave/
x64 is a bad design and instruction set, impossible to do performance tweaks in machine language for Intel x86 CPUs, for example, because of its hardware translation to an internal RISC instruction set and enormous pipelines (you never know what instructions sequence is chosen even if the internal RISC instruction set is documented). Intel does hardware translation because x86 is otherwise completely bogus ...
My 27” iMac 14,2 (late 2013) is getting long in the tooth but I will not wait until the latter half of 2020 to find out if Macs are moving to ARM. The 2019 iMac may be my last Intel Mac but I don’t really care.
Really? My 27" iMac (11,1 late 2009) is still chugging along just fine. Although it is stuck on High Sierra - the first time I've ever owned a Mac that doesn't have the latest OS.
Great hire! This guy has some big chops, AMD, INTEL, and ARM! Just watch what’s coming!
Possible in-house x64 based CPUs?
No. Intel and AMD x86 platform patents license agreements perfectly show how hard it is. The only other company allowed to make x86 products is VIA, but they're embedded products centered.
People cleverer than me will be able to give good reasons but why does Apple not buy AMD? Market cap is just over $30B, more than affordable for Apple.
People cleverer than me will be able to give good reasons but why does Apple not buy AMD? Market cap is just over $30B, more than affordable for Apple.
Because if Apple tries that move, it'll land them in trouble in the eyes of the FTC and Department of Justice. They have no reason to buy AMD. What do you will happen if they buy it and then all of a sudden, within a decade or so ( maybe sooner ) from now another new competitor arrives with a better product than what Intel and AMD had? They'll regret it.
Apple has too much heat to deal with regarding the trade war and the Justice Department investigating the company, among others, for antitrust rules.
Apple has what, 8% of the X86 market. I can't see how they could be in any kind of regulatory trouble with this. Your 'new competitor' line is also puzzling. The silicon industry is packed with competitors. Apple seems to be good at staying near the top of the pile. Having total control over both Mac and iOS would fit right in with how they like to do things. After all, they've been blaming Intel a lot for all manner of holdups. Being able to custom design their next generation of chips would have been something they would be up for doing. Unless of course, they are about to exit the x86 market altogether...
Apple is NOT abandoning x86 architecture for Mac! More likely you will see iPad get faster with more Mac-like features. The the upcoming versions, of iPadOS and MacOS are very similar and are only likely to become more so over time. That's why Apple is continuing to invest in it's own ARM designs.
This is what I also think will happen. macOS / x86 will stick around for "legacy" workflows & iPadOS / ARM for "modern" workflows
And also modern furniture. Panels kiosks everywhere... The initial Surface “Table” has only promoted Hawaii Five-0 and evolved to a stupid folding AIO Desktop. It is not unusual you see a crashed kiosk somewhere asking Windows admin password. Consider iPad evolved to a wallPad. Needs a powerful chip to drive such a big display, ML/AI and alike. The future is iPad, not Mac.
The future for most people who want to get real work done is Mac, not iPad. The iPad has its uses though, largely for people who mostly consume content.
Apple doesn’t think so. Neither software giants like Adobe, Autodesk, Microsoft, IBM, SAP...
If Apple didn't think so, why didn't they do that in the FIRST place? It's all about the App Store. As soon as iPad came out, the App Store drove sales and despite the popularity of the tablet, it wasn't enough to handle the creative professional work due to a lack of pressure sensitive stylus. iPad Pro came along which solved SOME of the issues but not entirely. Sure it has a nice 12.9 screen size but it's not enough. iPadOS should have been implemented a LONG. TIME. AGO, not 2019.
If this company claims to think outside the box, it just missed the boat for some time. And Apple should've anticipated that initially.
As a professional artist, I can see the portability of the 12.9 size however, it needs to go to 11 x 17 or should I say 17 inches. And the reason for that is because usually illustrators work with A4 or 11 x 17 illustration boards for their work. I should know. I've owned the original for two years now thanks to a grant that saved me $1,000. Sometimes larger. If you've read comic books, you should know that comic book artists originally drew them in 11 x 17 to actual scale and then the finished version is scaled down. And they still do it by that standard size today.
Hell, even Marvel, DC and others have Wacom Cintiqs within their in-house studios. Some might use iPads but professionally, they use a much larger screen for that reason to spread the palettes out for better screen estate. With 11 x 17, illustrators won't have to pinch/zoom to push pixels which is somewhat discouraged in the field as you have to focus on the expressive line art, or even brush strokes. I know what I'm talking about because 'pixel pushing' has been talked about for a long time within the creative industry like concept art, digital art, comics, etc. And yes, I'm aware that one can pan around at 100% size to view on a 12.9 screen even though I'd rather see the entire image most of the time.
This is one reason why Wacom Cintiqs are superior due to screen size so artists can draw widely with their shoulders ( it's how it's done, not from the wrist unless you're doing it with a small sketchbook by hand ). And it's astounding that Jony Ive, as a designer/artist should KNOW better than go with a 12.9 screen. Yes, Cintiqs are incredibly expensive and so are the Wacom Intuos ( old school models ) but they do get the job done very well without any feature overload or distraction.
Even graphic designers who do book page layout need to SEE the actual size in 100% scale to view. On 12.9 inches, it would be crammed too tightly unless its a tiny paperback. For a logo or such, it's manageable. I use some Adobe apps, Clip Studio Paint, Procreate, Sketchbook Pro and such on my iPad but I also do my work in my iMac. Anyone who thinks they can get away with everything in today's iPad alone without a desktop is going to realize that mistake. If I'm going to do vector work, I'd rather use a mouse for precision while seeing the entire picture. With iPad Pro using, say, Affinity Designer, you'd have to close up, pan around, use the Pencil to add a bezier curve to create a path line, and pan around. With a 17 inch screen, it would be a LOT easier on the eyes to be able to see where the path is going instead of having to pinch/zoom/pan.
Autodesk? Sure, it's nice to build a prototype on the iPad Pro but when it comes to actual heavy lifting, you need a desktop for that. I prefer doing this on a 21 inch or larger screen so I can see the 'big picture'. A 12.9 screen has limitations. However, if you're using it for basic word processing, notation, administrative work, then that's fine otherwise a laptop would be much more ideal for that. I've an old friend who does AR/VR and 3D modelling, having worked for WETA for Lord of the Rings years ago, for a living and he doesn't use an iPad Pro for that, only probably to use as a presentation for clients alone.
And so if iPad Pro is going to replace a desktop, it needs to BEHAVE like one with actual ports and get a bigger screen size. At least, Microsoft had the right idea with their Surface Studio PC despite the high price tag. And no, Gorilla arms is inexcusable. I own a large drafting desk with a slanted angle and have been drawing on it for years and I know that Apple can do better than just the iMac design. It needs to evolve to what the Surface PC is now. THAT's the future of desktop evolution. iPad is NOT the only way nor the 'messiah'.
But I digress. Whatever Apple has planned, they better not screw it up with their ARM plans and keep Intel for their desktops until then. But it looks like Microsoft is getting started with ARM in their Surface devices so that's bound to happen first long before Apple does it.
Apple is NOT abandoning x86 architecture for Mac! More likely you will see iPad get faster with more Mac-like features. The the upcoming versions, of iPadOS and MacOS are very similar and are only likely to become more so over time. That's why Apple is continuing to invest in it's own ARM designs.
This is what I also think will happen. macOS / x86 will stick around for "legacy" workflows & iPadOS / ARM for "modern" workflows
And also modern furniture. Panels kiosks everywhere... The initial Surface “Table” has only promoted Hawaii Five-0 and evolved to a stupid folding AIO Desktop. It is not unusual you see a crashed kiosk somewhere asking Windows admin password. Consider iPad evolved to a wallPad. Needs a powerful chip to drive such a big display, ML/AI and alike. The future is iPad, not Mac.
The future for most people who want to get real work done is Mac, not iPad. The iPad has its uses though, largely for people who mostly consume content.
Apple doesn’t think so. Neither software giants like Adobe, Autodesk, Microsoft, IBM, SAP...
If Apple didn't think so, why didn't they do that in the FIRST place? It's all about the App Store. As soon as iPad came out, the App Store drove sales and despite the popularity of the tablet, it wasn't enough to handle the creative professional work due to a lack of pressure sensitive stylus. iPad Pro came along which solved SOME of the issues but not entirely. Sure it has a nice 12.9 screen size but it's not enough. iPadOS should have been implemented a LONG. TIME. AGO, not 2019.
If this company claims to think outside the box, it just missed the boat for some time. And Apple should've anticipated that initially.
As a professional artist, I can see the portability of the 12.9 size however, it needs to go to 11 x 17 or should I say 17 inches. And the reason for that is because usually illustrators work with A4 or 11 x 17 illustration boards for their work. I should know. I've owned the original for two years now thanks to a grant that saved me $1,000. Sometimes larger. If you've read comic books, you should know that comic book artists originally drew them in 11 x 17 to actual scale and then the finished version is scaled down. And they still do it by that standard size today.
Hell, even Marvel, DC and others have Wacom Cintiqs within their in-house studios. Some might use iPads but professionally, they use a much larger screen for that reason to spread the palettes out for better screen estate. With 11 x 17, illustrators won't have to pinch/zoom to push pixels which is somewhat discouraged in the field as you have to focus on the expressive line art, or even brush strokes. I know what I'm talking about because 'pixel pushing' has been talked about for a long time within the creative industry like concept art, digital art, comics, etc. And yes, I'm aware that one can pan around at 100% size to view on a 12.9 screen even though I'd rather see the entire image most of the time.
This is one reason why Wacom Cintiqs are superior due to screen size so artists can draw widely with their shoulders ( it's how it's done, not from the wrist unless you're doing it with a small sketchbook by hand ). And it's astounding that Jony Ive, as a designer/artist should KNOW better than go with a 12.9 screen. Yes, Cintiqs are incredibly expensive and so are the Wacom Intuos ( old school models ) but they do get the job done very well without any feature overload or distraction.
Even graphic designers who do book page layout need to SEE the actual size in 100% scale to view. On 12.9 inches, it would be crammed too tightly unless its a tiny paperback. For a logo or such, it's manageable. I use some Adobe apps, Clip Studio Paint, Procreate, Sketchbook Pro and such on my iPad but I also do my work in my iMac. Anyone who thinks they can get away with everything in today's iPad alone without a desktop is going to realize that mistake. If I'm going to do vector work, I'd rather use a mouse for precision while seeing the entire picture. With iPad Pro using, say, Affinity Designer, you'd have to close up, pan around, use the Pencil to add a bezier curve to create a path line, and pan around. With a 17 inch screen, it would be a LOT easier on the eyes to be able to see where the path is going instead of having to pinch/zoom/pan.
Autodesk? Sure, it's nice to build a prototype on the iPad Pro but when it comes to actual heavy lifting, you need a desktop for that. I prefer doing this on a 21 inch or larger screen so I can see the 'big picture'. A 12.9 screen has limitations. However, if you're using it for basic word processing, notation, administrative work, then that's fine otherwise a laptop would be much more ideal for that. I've an old friend who does AR/VR and 3D modelling, having worked for WETA for Lord of the Rings years ago, for a living and he doesn't use an iPad Pro for that, only probably to use as a presentation for clients alone.
And so if iPad Pro is going to replace a desktop, it needs to BEHAVE like one with actual ports and get a bigger screen size. At least, Microsoft had the right idea with their Surface Studio PC despite the high price tag. And no, Gorilla arms is inexcusable. I own a large drafting desk with a slanted angle and have been drawing on it for years and I know that Apple can do better than just the iMac design. It needs to evolve to what the Surface PC is now. THAT's the future of desktop evolution. iPad is NOT the only way nor the 'messiah'.
But I digress. Whatever Apple has planned, they better not screw it up with their ARM plans and keep Intel for their desktops until then. But it looks like Microsoft is getting started with ARM in their Surface devices so that's bound to happen first long before Apple does it.
Great. Keep up the good work. Thank you for your time to summarize general blogosphere hype everyone is already aware of. Apple has already a desktop class ARM that can compete with some Intel’s. They made an iPad Pro of it, not a Mac. As for Mac, here is the T2, a perfect “ARM Mac” ! ...
People cleverer than me will be able to give good reasons but why does Apple not buy AMD? Market cap is just over $30B, more than affordable for Apple.
Why would they buy AMD? They can use AMD chips now if they wanted to, what advantage would buying the company get them?
Apple is NOT abandoning x86 architecture for Mac! More likely you will see iPad get faster with more Mac-like features. The the upcoming versions, of iPadOS and MacOS are very similar and are only likely to become more so over time. That's why Apple is continuing to invest in it's own ARM designs.
This is what I also think will happen. macOS / x86 will stick around for "legacy" workflows & iPadOS / ARM for "modern" workflows
And also modern furniture. Panels kiosks everywhere... The initial Surface “Table” has only promoted Hawaii Five-0 and evolved to a stupid folding AIO Desktop. It is not unusual you see a crashed kiosk somewhere asking Windows admin password. Consider iPad evolved to a wallPad. Needs a powerful chip to drive such a big display, ML/AI and alike. The future is iPad, not Mac.
The future for most people who want to get real work done is Mac, not iPad. The iPad has its uses though, largely for people who mostly consume content.
Apple doesn’t think so. Neither software giants like Adobe, Autodesk, Microsoft, IBM, SAP...
If Apple didn't think so, why didn't they do that in the FIRST place? It's all about the App Store. As soon as iPad came out, the App Store drove sales and despite the popularity of the tablet, it wasn't enough to handle the creative professional work due to a lack of pressure sensitive stylus. iPad Pro came along which solved SOME of the issues but not entirely. Sure it has a nice 12.9 screen size but it's not enough. iPadOS should have been implemented a LONG. TIME. AGO, not 2019.
If this company claims to think outside the box, it just missed the boat for some time. And Apple should've anticipated that initially.
As a professional artist, I can see the portability of the 12.9 size however, it needs to go to 11 x 17 or should I say 17 inches. And the reason for that is because usually illustrators work with A4 or 11 x 17 illustration boards for their work. I should know. I've owned the original for two years now thanks to a grant that saved me $1,000. Sometimes larger. If you've read comic books, you should know that comic book artists originally drew them in 11 x 17 to actual scale and then the finished version is scaled down. And they still do it by that standard size today.
Hell, even Marvel, DC and others have Wacom Cintiqs within their in-house studios. Some might use iPads but professionally, they use a much larger screen for that reason to spread the palettes out for better screen estate. With 11 x 17, illustrators won't have to pinch/zoom to push pixels which is somewhat discouraged in the field as you have to focus on the expressive line art, or even brush strokes. I know what I'm talking about because 'pixel pushing' has been talked about for a long time within the creative industry like concept art, digital art, comics, etc. And yes, I'm aware that one can pan around at 100% size to view on a 12.9 screen even though I'd rather see the entire image most of the time.
This is one reason why Wacom Cintiqs are superior due to screen size so artists can draw widely with their shoulders ( it's how it's done, not from the wrist unless you're doing it with a small sketchbook by hand ). And it's astounding that Jony Ive, as a designer/artist should KNOW better than go with a 12.9 screen. Yes, Cintiqs are incredibly expensive and so are the Wacom Intuos ( old school models ) but they do get the job done very well without any feature overload or distraction.
Even graphic designers who do book page layout need to SEE the actual size in 100% scale to view. On 12.9 inches, it would be crammed too tightly unless its a tiny paperback. For a logo or such, it's manageable. I use some Adobe apps, Clip Studio Paint, Procreate, Sketchbook Pro and such on my iPad but I also do my work in my iMac. Anyone who thinks they can get away with everything in today's iPad alone without a desktop is going to realize that mistake. If I'm going to do vector work, I'd rather use a mouse for precision while seeing the entire picture. With iPad Pro using, say, Affinity Designer, you'd have to close up, pan around, use the Pencil to add a bezier curve to create a path line, and pan around. With a 17 inch screen, it would be a LOT easier on the eyes to be able to see where the path is going instead of having to pinch/zoom/pan.
Autodesk? Sure, it's nice to build a prototype on the iPad Pro but when it comes to actual heavy lifting, you need a desktop for that. I prefer doing this on a 21 inch or larger screen so I can see the 'big picture'. A 12.9 screen has limitations. However, if you're using it for basic word processing, notation, administrative work, then that's fine otherwise a laptop would be much more ideal for that. I've an old friend who does AR/VR and 3D modelling, having worked for WETA for Lord of the Rings years ago, for a living and he doesn't use an iPad Pro for that, only probably to use as a presentation for clients alone.
And so if iPad Pro is going to replace a desktop, it needs to BEHAVE like one with actual ports and get a bigger screen size. At least, Microsoft had the right idea with their Surface Studio PC despite the high price tag. And no, Gorilla arms is inexcusable. I own a large drafting desk with a slanted angle and have been drawing on it for years and I know that Apple can do better than just the iMac design. It needs to evolve to what the Surface PC is now. THAT's the future of desktop evolution. iPad is NOT the only way nor the 'messiah'.
But I digress. Whatever Apple has planned, they better not screw it up with their ARM plans and keep Intel for their desktops until then. But it looks like Microsoft is getting started with ARM in their Surface devices so that's bound to happen first long before Apple does it.
Apple is NOT abandoning x86 architecture for Mac! More likely you will see iPad get faster with more Mac-like features. The the upcoming versions, of iPadOS and MacOS are very similar and are only likely to become more so over time. That's why Apple is continuing to invest in it's own ARM designs.
This is what I also think will happen. macOS / x86 will stick around for "legacy" workflows & iPadOS / ARM for "modern" workflows
And also modern furniture. Panels kiosks everywhere... The initial Surface “Table” has only promoted Hawaii Five-0 and evolved to a stupid folding AIO Desktop. It is not unusual you see a crashed kiosk somewhere asking Windows admin password. Consider iPad evolved to a wallPad. Needs a powerful chip to drive such a big display, ML/AI and alike. The future is iPad, not Mac.
The future for most people who want to get real work done is Mac, not iPad. The iPad has its uses though, largely for people who mostly consume content.
Apple doesn’t think so. Neither software giants like Adobe, Autodesk, Microsoft, IBM, SAP...
If Apple didn't think so, why didn't they do that in the FIRST place? It's all about the App Store. As soon as iPad came out, the App Store drove sales and despite the popularity of the tablet, it wasn't enough to handle the creative professional work due to a lack of pressure sensitive stylus. iPad Pro came along which solved SOME of the issues but not entirely. Sure it has a nice 12.9 screen size but it's not enough. iPadOS should have been implemented a LONG. TIME. AGO, not 2019.
If this company claims to think outside the box, it just missed the boat for some time. And Apple should've anticipated that initially.
As a professional artist, I can see the portability of the 12.9 size however, it needs to go to 11 x 17 or should I say 17 inches. And the reason for that is because usually illustrators work with A4 or 11 x 17 illustration boards for their work. I should know. I've owned the original for two years now thanks to a grant that saved me $1,000. Sometimes larger. If you've read comic books, you should know that comic book artists originally drew them in 11 x 17 to actual scale and then the finished version is scaled down. And they still do it by that standard size today.
Hell, even Marvel, DC and others have Wacom Cintiqs within their in-house studios. Some might use iPads but professionally, they use a much larger screen for that reason to spread the palettes out for better screen estate. With 11 x 17, illustrators won't have to pinch/zoom to push pixels which is somewhat discouraged in the field as you have to focus on the expressive line art, or even brush strokes. I know what I'm talking about because 'pixel pushing' has been talked about for a long time within the creative industry like concept art, digital art, comics, etc. And yes, I'm aware that one can pan around at 100% size to view on a 12.9 screen even though I'd rather see the entire image most of the time.
This is one reason why Wacom Cintiqs are superior due to screen size so artists can draw widely with their shoulders ( it's how it's done, not from the wrist unless you're doing it with a small sketchbook by hand ). And it's astounding that Jony Ive, as a designer/artist should KNOW better than go with a 12.9 screen. Yes, Cintiqs are incredibly expensive and so are the Wacom Intuos ( old school models ) but they do get the job done very well without any feature overload or distraction.
Even graphic designers who do book page layout need to SEE the actual size in 100% scale to view. On 12.9 inches, it would be crammed too tightly unless its a tiny paperback. For a logo or such, it's manageable. I use some Adobe apps, Clip Studio Paint, Procreate, Sketchbook Pro and such on my iPad but I also do my work in my iMac. Anyone who thinks they can get away with everything in today's iPad alone without a desktop is going to realize that mistake. If I'm going to do vector work, I'd rather use a mouse for precision while seeing the entire picture. With iPad Pro using, say, Affinity Designer, you'd have to close up, pan around, use the Pencil to add a bezier curve to create a path line, and pan around. With a 17 inch screen, it would be a LOT easier on the eyes to be able to see where the path is going instead of having to pinch/zoom/pan.
Autodesk? Sure, it's nice to build a prototype on the iPad Pro but when it comes to actual heavy lifting, you need a desktop for that. I prefer doing this on a 21 inch or larger screen so I can see the 'big picture'. A 12.9 screen has limitations. However, if you're using it for basic word processing, notation, administrative work, then that's fine otherwise a laptop would be much more ideal for that. I've an old friend who does AR/VR and 3D modelling, having worked for WETA for Lord of the Rings years ago, for a living and he doesn't use an iPad Pro for that, only probably to use as a presentation for clients alone.
And so if iPad Pro is going to replace a desktop, it needs to BEHAVE like one with actual ports and get a bigger screen size. At least, Microsoft had the right idea with their Surface Studio PC despite the high price tag. And no, Gorilla arms is inexcusable. I own a large drafting desk with a slanted angle and have been drawing on it for years and I know that Apple can do better than just the iMac design. It needs to evolve to what the Surface PC is now. THAT's the future of desktop evolution. iPad is NOT the only way nor the 'messiah'.
But I digress. Whatever Apple has planned, they better not screw it up with their ARM plans and keep Intel for their desktops until then. But it looks like Microsoft is getting started with ARM in their Surface devices so that's bound to happen first long before Apple does it.
Maybe draw with paper and pencil then.
Cute. Let me reiterate. Creative professionals in the illustration and graphic design field use digital software today to meet clientele demands. It doesn’t mean they don’t do it by hand which is still the norm. I still do it b my hand but only for preliminary work or as original pieces. In other words. In my field, both digital and analog art is not unheard of. I’ve said that iPad Pro is NOT the end all, be all device. It does have its place but is not perfect. For it to be considered a desktop replacement, it needs to behave like one and have a much larger screen up to 17 inches and a better Pencil that doesn’t require recharging.
Wacom stylus can go all day on Cintiq or Intuos models. I speak from experience and have been doing this for years.
Nope. Intel won't license the x86 architecture to Apple, and Apple won't split internal development effort between two instruction sets.
People are too wrapped up in CPU architecture these days, that isn’t the future of computing. The future of computing lies in special function hardware which the A series are already demonstrating. Well over half of the A12 is dedicated to special function hardware already, the actual ARM cores taking up a small space on the die.
If if I was in charge of such things at Apple ID be making sure one hell of a lot of energy was going into support for AI/ML hardware. We have barely scratched the surface with respect to such hardware. Of course one could expect continued improvement to the video/image processing hardware that already takes ups huge part of Apples A series chips. There will likely be new hardware that isn’t even thought about yet.
By the way I’m not saying Apple won’t improve the CPU, that is a given, but rather I’m not convinced they hired this guy for that job! More importantly Apple already has an excellent CPU team so I can easily imagine this guy working on new tech. Maybe a highly optimized processor for automobiles. There are lots of possibilities here.
Nope. Intel won't license the x86 architecture to Apple, and Apple won't split internal development effort between two instruction sets.
It already is split between two instruction sets. IOS is a stripped down Mac OS with a different GUI. Much of the code is common between those two platforms. With Apples Swift initiatives I would expect even more commonality.
Beyond that Macs already are shuffling some tasks off to Apple designer A series chips in the new Macs. Some of that is the result of Apple being Apple causing more grief for their users but that doesn’t dismiss the fact that most of Apples modern machines have an ARM chip in them running code that use to run on X 86.
Apple is NOT abandoning x86 architecture for Mac! More likely you will see iPad get faster with more Mac-like features. The the upcoming versions, of iPadOS and MacOS are very similar and are only likely to become more so over time. That's why Apple is continuing to invest in it's own ARM designs.
This is what I also think will happen. macOS / x86 will stick around for "legacy" workflows & iPadOS / ARM for "modern" workflows
IPadOS does nothing to solve the needs many pros have. In fact it glosses over many requests. I have an open mind and hope the shipping iPad OS evolves quickly over time but Apples track record here is pretty bad. It will be very interesting to see what iPadOS looks like in 2021.
People cleverer than me will be able to give good reasons but why does Apple not buy AMD? Market cap is just over $30B, more than affordable for Apple.
Way too expensive. That's a 3rd of their cash pile for what?
I expect the first ARMacs to be portables. Unless Apple scales up the cores and goes crazy with parallel processing.
What I'd like to see is ARM running Intel apps through emulation (especially old 32-bit apps).
What would be really cool would be ARM running old PPC apps, OS9, or even 680x0. We can dream, can't we?
Apples ARM cores are already extremely impressive so scalling isn’t a big issue there. A series like every APU type processor suffers from memory bandwidth issues. If Apple addressed that we would already have a decent laptop chip for ultra portables. So a on HBM supported SoC would be wonderful.
Apple is NOT abandoning x86 architecture for Mac! More likely you will see iPad get faster with more Mac-like features. The the upcoming versions, of iPadOS and MacOS are very similar and are only likely to become more so over time. That's why Apple is continuing to invest in it's own ARM designs.
This is what I also think will happen. macOS / x86 will stick around for "legacy" workflows & iPadOS / ARM for "modern" workflows
IPadOS does nothing to solve the needs many pros have. In fact it glosses over many requests. I have an open mind and hope the shipping iPad OS evolves quickly over time but Apples track record here is pretty bad. It will be very interesting to see what iPadOS looks like in 2021.
Of course iPad OS will not make the iPad a "touchscreen Mac". Those who expect that or who expect 360 degree swiveling monitor/clamshell/tablet should look elsewhere, not in Apple. Apple obviously cannot introduce disruptive UI changes suddenly. What iPad OS signals is that Apple is now more determined to develop iPad independently of the iPhone and Mac product ranges, more determined in complying with Steve Jobs' Post-PC vision.
Comments
Most people are talking about the actual device when they talk about a shift to ARM. I think Apple may chance their arm on an ARM processor ( pun intended) but it will just be exploratory. No reason to do it unless they get better performance at that price range, and while I know how the software stack works on the Mac pretty well, I can't really talk about how the chips scale up from low power to high power.
Booting into Windows is important to some people of course, but Apple will know the exact statistics on that.
That would be a waste of engineering effort. Btw if you lit a fire under the developers of the 32bit apps they could port to 64 bit and to ARM ( if necessary) in less than a day, if their architecture is clean.
x64 is a bad design and instruction set, impossible to do performance tweaks in machine language for Intel x86 CPUs, for example, because of its hardware translation to an internal RISC instruction set and enormous pipelines (you never know what instructions sequence is chosen even if the internal RISC instruction set is documented).
Intel does hardware translation because x86 is otherwise completely bogus ...
Apple has too much heat to deal with regarding the trade war and the Justice Department investigating the company, among others, for antitrust rules.
If this company claims to think outside the box, it just missed the boat for some time. And Apple should've anticipated that initially.
As a professional artist, I can see the portability of the 12.9 size however, it needs to go to 11 x 17 or should I say 17 inches. And the reason for that is because usually illustrators work with A4 or 11 x 17 illustration boards for their work. I should know. I've owned the original for two years now thanks to a grant that saved me $1,000. Sometimes larger. If you've read comic books, you should know that comic book artists originally drew them in 11 x 17 to actual scale and then the finished version is scaled down. And they still do it by that standard size today.
Hell, even Marvel, DC and others have Wacom Cintiqs within their in-house studios. Some might use iPads but professionally, they use a much larger screen for that reason to spread the palettes out for better screen estate. With 11 x 17, illustrators won't have to pinch/zoom to push pixels which is somewhat discouraged in the field as you have to focus on the expressive line art, or even brush strokes. I know what I'm talking about because 'pixel pushing' has been talked about for a long time within the creative industry like concept art, digital art, comics, etc. And yes, I'm aware that one can pan around at 100% size to view on a 12.9 screen even though I'd rather see the entire image most of the time.
This is one reason why Wacom Cintiqs are superior due to screen size so artists can draw widely with their shoulders ( it's how it's done, not from the wrist unless you're doing it with a small sketchbook by hand ). And it's astounding that Jony Ive, as a designer/artist should KNOW better than go with a 12.9 screen. Yes, Cintiqs are incredibly expensive and so are the Wacom Intuos ( old school models ) but they do get the job done very well without any feature overload or distraction.
Even graphic designers who do book page layout need to SEE the actual size in 100% scale to view. On 12.9 inches, it would be crammed too tightly unless its a tiny paperback. For a logo or such, it's manageable. I use some Adobe apps, Clip Studio Paint, Procreate, Sketchbook Pro and such on my iPad but I also do my work in my iMac. Anyone who thinks they can get away with everything in today's iPad alone without a desktop is going to realize that mistake. If I'm going to do vector work, I'd rather use a mouse for precision while seeing the entire picture. With iPad Pro using, say, Affinity Designer, you'd have to close up, pan around, use the Pencil to add a bezier curve to create a path line, and pan around. With a 17 inch screen, it would be a LOT easier on the eyes to be able to see where the path is going instead of having to pinch/zoom/pan.
Autodesk? Sure, it's nice to build a prototype on the iPad Pro but when it comes to actual heavy lifting, you need a desktop for that. I prefer doing this on a 21 inch or larger screen so I can see the 'big picture'. A 12.9 screen has limitations. However, if you're using it for basic word processing, notation, administrative work, then that's fine otherwise a laptop would be much more ideal for that. I've an old friend who does AR/VR and 3D modelling, having worked for WETA for Lord of the Rings years ago, for a living and he doesn't use an iPad Pro for that, only probably to use as a presentation for clients alone.
And so if iPad Pro is going to replace a desktop, it needs to BEHAVE like one with actual ports and get a bigger screen size. At least, Microsoft had the right idea with their Surface Studio PC despite the high price tag. And no, Gorilla arms is inexcusable. I own a large drafting desk with a slanted angle and have been drawing on it for years and I know that Apple can do better than just the iMac design. It needs to evolve to what the Surface PC is now. THAT's the future of desktop evolution. iPad is NOT the only way nor the 'messiah'.
But I digress. Whatever Apple has planned, they better not screw it up with their ARM plans and keep Intel for their desktops until then. But it looks like Microsoft is getting started with ARM in their Surface devices so that's bound to happen first long before Apple does it.
Wacom stylus can go all day on Cintiq or Intuos models. I speak from experience and have been doing this for years.
If if I was in charge of such things at Apple ID be making sure one hell of a lot of energy was going into support for AI/ML hardware. We have barely scratched the surface with respect to such hardware. Of course one could expect continued improvement to the video/image processing hardware that already takes ups huge part of Apples A series chips. There will likely be new hardware that isn’t even thought about yet.
By the way I’m not saying Apple won’t improve the CPU, that is a given, but rather I’m not convinced they hired this guy for that job! More importantly Apple already has an excellent CPU team so I can easily imagine this guy working on new tech. Maybe a highly optimized processor for automobiles. There are lots of possibilities here.
Beyond that Macs already are shuffling some tasks off to Apple designer A series chips in the new Macs. Some of that is the result of Apple being Apple causing more grief for their users but that doesn’t dismiss the fact that most of Apples modern machines have an ARM chip in them running code that use to run on X 86.