Apple unveils plans to ditch Intel chips in Macs for 'Apple Silicon'

1679111218

Comments

  • Reply 161 of 342
    Why would Apple even build MacBooks or iMacs anymore! They will probably build larger screen iPads! Cook has been a fan of the iPad as a computer replacement anyway! It appears that the Apple computer line up will be just a few iPads and iPhones! Mac Pro might still have a Intel Xeon Chips for a brief time but I do not see the pro line up existing but a few years! Apple computers will not exist much longer! All Tim Cook wants is a mobile device environment with limited pro features! Apple wants to go into services as well! It’s all about sales margins! Cook claims innovation but it really is about money! Apple is not dead but will be totally different in a few years!
    The iPad is not a computer replacement. It is a computer.
    razorpittmayroundaboutnowDeelronStrangeDaysfastasleepRayz2016canukstormrundhvidwatto_cobra
  • Reply 162 of 342
    fastasleepfastasleep Posts: 6,408member
    nubus said:
    the corporations might have just said "we buy Windows boxes a dozen a dime, we don't need Windows-compatible Macs, just give us pure native Macs". Obviously a Macbook Pro is too expensive to run Windows. Given the penetration of the iPhone and iPad into the corporate world, the trend may have chosen the second path. Obviously it is Apple who owns the data about that. Considering that Apple sells to the corporate world by ten thousands, it is unlikely that they didn't calculate the corporate sales loss when switching to Apple Silicon. 
    Indeed - the keynote raised so many questions. Apple showed that old apps can run, but anything else would have been a disaster. There is no "killer feature" with this switch. What does this add that a T2 couldn't? We simply don't know.
    If Apple cared about Mac then we would have seen more than 2 Mac Pro upgrades in a decade. The keynote didn't address that. Apple lost K-12 in 5 years - dropping from 60% of the market to 20% - Mac+iPad combined. A new skin on the OS won't make the Mac relevant to K-12 or business.

    I started on Apple II but is there a path beyond emojis, Pinterest tabs in Safari, and those applications I can get on Windows? Or is the solution to get a iPad Pro at home and Windows at work?
    You need to go watch the Platforms State of the Union — it covers a ton of advantages of the switch. Not sure you care about the truth though, since you're being intellectually dishonest by pretending all they're offering is all about emojis and Pinterest, which is flat out bullshit.

    https://developer.apple.com/videos/play/wwdc2020/102/

    razorpitasdasdJWSCroundaboutnowDeelronAppleSince1976StrangeDaystmayRayz2016chia
  • Reply 163 of 342
    fastasleepfastasleep Posts: 6,408member

    nubus said:
    apple1991 said:
    Apple Silicon = touch based Macs? 
    They could have touch-based Macs on Intel if they wanted. Whether they add touch or not is not dependent on the processor.
    They could have, but it would have been touch like on Windows. On Apple Silicon they can let the iPad apps run at native speed. That wouldn't be possible on Intel.
    Apparently you haven't heard of Catalyst which already allows them to port iPad apps to Mac. Regardless of apps, they could've implemented touch at any point already. It DOES NOT require a different processor, that's absurd.
    tmayJWSCroundaboutnowAppleSince1976StrangeDaysRayz2016chiamacky the mackywatto_cobra
  • Reply 164 of 342
    RikerRiker Posts: 7member
    Linux is supported, why not Windows in VM?  That's an ARM distribution of Linux.  Docker and MONO also have ARM distributions.

    Remember, VIrtualization (VirtualBox, Parallels, etc.) and compatibility layers (WINE) require that the underlying binaries run directly on the CPU.  WINE exists for ARM now, but that's not going to run Intel binaries.

    For PowerPC to Intel, Steve Jobs put up a chart showing the increase in performance per watt making it clear it was a good business decision.  They're saying this is also the motivation here.  But, I want to see real-world benchmarks.
  • Reply 165 of 342
    RikerRiker Posts: 7member

    Quit with the Hater shit, willya? It gets really old. Take it to MacRumors; it’s all they’ve got there.
    There are opinions in the world that differ from yours.
  • Reply 166 of 342
    fastasleepfastasleep Posts: 6,408member
    Remember when everyone was handwringing over open source software getting cut off? That's not happening.

    roundaboutnowAppleSince1976StrangeDaysRayz2016jdb8167mtrivisowatto_cobra
  • Reply 167 of 342
    entropysentropys Posts: 4,152member
    Why would Apple even build MacBooks or iMacs anymore! They will probably build larger screen iPads! Cook has been a fan of the iPad as a computer replacement anyway! It appears that the Apple computer line up will be just a few iPads and iPhones! Mac Pro might still have a Intel Xeon Chips for a brief time but I do not see the pro line up existing but a few years! Apple computers will not exist much longer! All Tim Cook wants is a mobile device environment with limited pro features! Apple wants to go into services as well! It’s all about sales margins! Cook claims innovation but it really is about money! Apple is not dead but will be totally different in a few years!
    The iPad is not a computer replacement. It is a computer.
    I think in many ways this is a takeover of the Mac by the iPad. At present the dev macs will actually be using the iPad SOC (A12z). It is certainly freeing things up and removal some of the power/thermal limitations, but there is no reason that there will not be a lot of interoperatibility of software on ipadOS 14 and macOS 11. The main difference in the end will be power and UI.

    And what could it lead too? More powerful software on iPad. On the desktop, a touch screen DeskPad (aka MS Studio done right). Personally I think it might be the end of the Mac as we know it.
  • Reply 168 of 342
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 5,686member
    entropys said:
    Why would Apple even build MacBooks or iMacs anymore! They will probably build larger screen iPads! Cook has been a fan of the iPad as a computer replacement anyway! It appears that the Apple computer line up will be just a few iPads and iPhones! Mac Pro might still have a Intel Xeon Chips for a brief time but I do not see the pro line up existing but a few years! Apple computers will not exist much longer! All Tim Cook wants is a mobile device environment with limited pro features! Apple wants to go into services as well! It’s all about sales margins! Cook claims innovation but it really is about money! Apple is not dead but will be totally different in a few years!
    The iPad is not a computer replacement. It is a computer.
    I think in many ways this is a takeover of the Mac by the iPad. At present the dev macs will actually be using the iPad SOC (A12z). It is certainly freeing things up and removal some of the power/thermal limitations, but there is no reason that there will not be a lot of interoperatibility of software on ipadOS 14 and macOS 11. The main difference in the end will be power and UI.

    And what could it lead too? More powerful software on iPad. On the desktop, a touch screen DeskPad (aka MS Studio done right). Personally I think it might be the end of the Mac as we know it.
    It will still be a Mac. 
    fastasleepwatto_cobra
  • Reply 169 of 342
    fastasleepfastasleep Posts: 6,408member
    entropys said:
    Why would Apple even build MacBooks or iMacs anymore! They will probably build larger screen iPads! Cook has been a fan of the iPad as a computer replacement anyway! It appears that the Apple computer line up will be just a few iPads and iPhones! Mac Pro might still have a Intel Xeon Chips for a brief time but I do not see the pro line up existing but a few years! Apple computers will not exist much longer! All Tim Cook wants is a mobile device environment with limited pro features! Apple wants to go into services as well! It’s all about sales margins! Cook claims innovation but it really is about money! Apple is not dead but will be totally different in a few years!
    The iPad is not a computer replacement. It is a computer.
    I think in many ways this is a takeover of the Mac by the iPad. At present the dev macs will actually be using the iPad SOC (A12z). It is certainly freeing things up and removal some of the power/thermal limitations, but there is no reason that there will not be a lot of interoperatibility of software on ipadOS 14 and macOS 11. The main difference in the end will be power and UI.

    And what could it lead too? More powerful software on iPad. On the desktop, a touch screen DeskPad (aka MS Studio done right). Personally I think it might be the end of the Mac as we know it.
    Why? There's nothing to suggest at this point that the Mac hardware/UI experience is going away or being supplanted by iPadOS and touch hardware only. I seriously don't understand how people can conclude this is the end of Mac when it's so clearly obvious to anyone with eyes and ears that they're stoked to make far better, more powerful Macs that exist alongside the iOS/iPadOS experience, now with more shared UX traits and cross-development advantages. 

    I mean sure, it's the "end of the Mac as we know it" as it has been with every major shift of the platform. Moving from a 9" black and white screen to a 13" color monitor was the end of the Mac as I first knew it. This is going to be a huge leap forward in the evolution of the Mac, and I could not be more here for it.
    roundaboutnowAppleSince1976StrangeDayschiapatchythepiratethtwatto_cobra
  • Reply 170 of 342
    I think people are not truly understanding why some people don't like this move from Apple. It is not a technical issue. It is not a loyalty problem.

    It is an Apple problem.

    Apple could use both Intel and A series chips for their computers. They could use compliers to produce code for both. They are even gong to do this in the sort term. 

    Apple is going to build the computers that Apple wants to build. Not the computers that some of us want them to build. They are not going to build a 12/16 core AMD class desktop. If they wanted to they already would have. 

    Some of us are upset cause we don't trust Apple to make the machines we want. This fear comes from years of neglect and having seen Apple make this transition 2x before. They already cut 32 bit games. These changes and decisions are on purpose. 

    Ask your self "What machines does Apple want to make." and is that machine for me. If it is, good for you. But some of us are going to get left behind and we don't like it.

    My greatest fear is that Apple and all its wonderful software and custom silicon will one day become the next Amiga. Remember this has almost happen. One when 68k died and again when AIM PPC alliance failed. 


  • Reply 171 of 342
    mdriftmeyermdriftmeyer Posts: 7,503member
    Awesome! No more waiting on deadbeat chipmakers.
    There were no deadbeat chip vendors. Apple could have moved to AMD two years ago and have the fastest systems around. 
  • Reply 172 of 342
    gwmacgwmac Posts: 1,807member
    This is a brilliant move by Apple and whether you are a user or a stockholder you should be thrilled. Their profit margin just skyrocketed without paying Intel any longer.

    Any mention how many cores might be used? Obviously the Mac Pro will get the largest number of cores, but I wonder how many will be in other models like the iMac and portables. I can't wait to start seeing some benchmarks. I'm sure Apple would never have done this if it didn't mean faster performance. 
    JWSCwatto_cobra
  • Reply 173 of 342
    mdriftmeyermdriftmeyer Posts: 7,503member

    I’m amazed they demoed Maya (and gaming) using Rosetta 2. I’m going to guess that 3D/animation apps are all going to be needing to be on Metal already in order to work in Rosetta (or at least work well?) but I’m beyond excited for this!

    Guess we’ll be waiting to see the new iMac, wonder when that’ll launch. 
    They demoed 1080p 60fps low settings and most of the acceleration was coming from the Afterburner integrated components they failed to mention on that motherboard. They mentioned no specs, completely unlike Apple. They showed the barest of stuff working, including that pathetic Maya demo of a wireframe and low graphic non-textured edit view.

    Just take a look at what is on the upcoming Motherboard. Most of the heavy lifting will come from the Afterburner parts and not the CPU/GPU SoC.

    All those specific processors/accelerators are FPGA based. High efficiency audio processor, Cryptography Acceleration, High-performance video editing, Machine Learning accelerators, High quality camera processor, Neural Engine. These are parts of the SoC. These are add-ons that you can't put in a smartphone or an iPad due to the massive batteries in the way. This stuff is bits and pieces on the Motherboard that compensate for the SoC being weak overall.

    You put each one of those in an Intel or especially an AMD system with the Zen 3 and it's 64 core/128 thread max for consumers and you have something that nothing Apple does will ever compete. Apple is doing this to increase their profit margins and further stream line contractual agreements with third parties by no longer being contractually obligated for x amount of years with this or that vendor.

    Apple will save the fully loaded system specs shown below for their most expensive variety of system and reduce the components down to their entry level machines. Profit margins will increase along with prices.

    The most annoying oblique reference is `Advanced silicon packaging.' The industry leader in advanced Silicon Packaging is the Zen line. The Zen 4 is introducing X3D packaging (2.5D & 3D packaging] for their SoC APUs and CPUs. It's obvious that AMD will be soon move to APUs only with Infinity Architecture shared backplane allowing for GPUs to share the same bandwidth/memory. Zen 2 APUs already have lower power design than Intel.

    Zen 3 drops down considerably further. AMD and Apple will be on 5nm and below at the same time.

    Nothing Apple is doing is for lack of options.



    patchythepiratemtriviso
  • Reply 174 of 342
    longfanglongfang Posts: 446member
    beng said:
    So, will Rosetta 2 run 32 bit apps?
    Why would it when current OSX doesn’t.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 175 of 342
    XedXed Posts: 2,519member
    longfang said:
    beng said:
    So, will Rosetta 2 run 32 bit apps?
    Why would it when current OSX doesn’t.
    Now that they have Rosetta 2 it better support 16-bit Motorola processors, too!
    StrangeDayschiaright_said_fredwatto_cobra
  • Reply 176 of 342
    dewmedewme Posts: 5,335member
    nubus said:
    1. The new MacBooks must bring touch screens. The interface and iOS compatibility features are screaming for touch.
    2. Mac Pro users lost again - if lucky they might be able to reuse their wheels :smiley: 
    3. Linux compatible but no word on Windows?
    4. If Messages is the most important Mac app and Safari is mainly for Pinterest... then this marks then end of the Mac for corporate use. Tim said PERSONAL computer. Don't expect docks or any focus on knowledge workers beyond group chat. iOS 14 uses AI to organize apps - but macOS doesn't use AI to organize documents or mix them with side panels showing related mails, chats,... that is super disappointing.
    Don't get why Apple will launch more hardware using Intel. I don't even get how they will they sell their existing "built on a terrible platform with no future" products?
    Until a few months ago I was thinking the same. There might be two outcomes in corporate use: either corporations would stick to their legacy systems centered on Windows and would make BootCamp a requirement for their Mac purchase,

    OR,

    the corporations might have just said "we buy Windows boxes a dozen a dime, we don't need Windows-compatible Macs, just give us pure native Macs". Obviously a Macbook Pro is too expensive to run Windows. Given the penetration of the iPhone and iPad into the corporate world, the trend may have chosen the second path. Obviously it is Apple who owns the data about that. Considering that Apple sells to the corporate world by ten thousands, it is unlikely that they didn't calculate the corporate sales loss when switching to Apple Silicon. They will continue to support the first path (BootCamp) with new Intel Macs inline, but in a couple of years those too may fade away depending on the penetration of Apple Silicon. Competition is good  B)
    As long as Microsoft continues to invest heavily in making sure their productivity apps are first class citizens on macOS, iPadOS, and iOS I don’t think Apple really cares about OS level Windows compatibility. Since Balmer left to pursue his hobbies Microsoft has been an implicit advocate of Apple’s mobile platforms. Apple’s macOS has never been a serious threat to Windows market share and probably never will be. However, I think Microsoft Windows is in a very precarious position from a market share perspective right now because they’ll never have the customer loyalty that macOS has on the high end and they are at serious risk of being eaten from below by Linux derivatives running on very cost single board computers like Raspberry Pi.  

    For many years I’d always gauge Linux’s ability to replace Windows on the desktop based on whether I could install it on a spouse’s or parent’s machine and leavIng it to them to be self sufficient. Unfortunately it never quite worked out. But that was a decade ago and Linux desktop releases have gotten significantly better. Coupling a decent Linux distribution with a $50 Raspberry Pi 4B is more than enough “Personal Computer” for a very large number of casual/regular PC users who would otherwise be paying significantly more for Windows claptrap they don’t need, or deserve. 
    mtrivisowatto_cobra
  • Reply 177 of 342
    MplsPMplsP Posts: 3,911member
    Rayz2016 said:

    crowley said:
    Maybe I missed it, but I haven't heard them say ARM once.  I wonder if that means anything.
    Good point. 

    But Apple doesn’t use ARM reference designs, just the instruction set, so they’re not really ARM chips from a hardware viewpoint. 
    They may have intentionally avoided the term and used "apple silicon" to emphasize that it's Apple's custom silicon. 

    watto_cobra
  • Reply 178 of 342
    MplsPMplsP Posts: 3,911member

    Best WWDC keynote in years. Straight to the point, no interacting with a life audience, pre-recorded is they doctor get it right without hiccups and keep it tightly scripted.  They should do it this way every year, with apologies to the live audience who would love to be present.  
    The last several keynotes have been filled with forced, expectant pauses where they wait for applause that the audience eventually gives when they realize they're supposed to. It all gets rather annoying. Think back to when Steve Jobs introduced the iPhone. The applause was genuine and the pause came out of necessity. Lately it's been the other way around.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 179 of 342
    MplsPMplsP Posts: 3,911member
    MacPro said:
    Man, Apple knocked it out of the park with this. They addressed all the major concerns people have been having over switching to ARM.

    They only left out Bootcamp, but even that was indirectly addressed by saying they’re still making Intel Macs as well. By the time they finish transitioning they might have a solution for that too.
    Maybe a plug in dongle, remember those cards for the Apple][?  I'm kidding!
    Back in the day I had an Atari 1040 ST. It used the same Motorola processor that Macs used and you could get a card with the Apple ROMs on it and run Mac software on the Atari. 
    nubuswatto_cobra
  • Reply 180 of 342
    The switch to Apple Silicon will allow Apple to expand the MacBook line down to much lower cost entry level machines thereby significantly increasing PC market share. Currently, the lowest cost MacBook Air is $999 and the lowest cost iPad is $329. An entry level MacBook could get by with passive cooling and a much smaller battery not to mention the Apple Silicon will be a small fraction of Intel silicon cost. The MacBook cost model will look very much like an iPad; therefore, I could see MacBooks starting at $499 or lower and the whole line dropping in price while Apple still increases profit margin. They will be able to go head-to-head with low-cost low-margin Wintel machines and make a nice profit, not to mention all the switchers they will attract. It's a brilliant move by Apple which is why the stock is on a tear.
    watto_cobra
Sign In or Register to comment.