Just listen in awe to all the crap being spouted. Since the ASi Macs won’t run Windows natively it’s all over for Apple. ASi Mac sales will crash into oblivion because EVERYBODY needs to run Windows ALL THE TIME on their Mac. Mac sales to the Enterprise will cease immediately because the only reason companies buy Macs is to run Windows. Without native Windows there is absolutely no reason to buy a Mac, EVER!
Does that about sum it up for guys like GergeBMac, Avon B7 and that crowd?
Your sarcasm is well taken. They are good points -- nobody buy a Mac because they want to run Windows.
But there is another side to it as well: When my grandchild asked for a Mac I worried that running only MacOS could cause difficulties and limititations. So, before buying one I investigated and found out what would be required to get a copy of Windows 10 running on it. Without that assurance I probably would have talked him into a Lenovo simply because it would have been a safer option. As it turned out, my concerns turned out to be true and I did end up installing Windows 10 under boot camp. Now he loves it -- and so does his mom.
The ability to run Windows is an insurance policy -- even if they don't use it, they know that they can if they have to.
I don't understand why Apple is dumping it all on Microsoft (and to produce a virtual version at that!). It seems to me that they and their current and future customers would be better off if they partnered with Microsoft to port an ARM version to the Macs to run natively under Bootcamp. Apple and Microsoft have partnered on thing like that before. I don't understand why they aren't this time.
It is a lot more work is why Apple isn’t trying to do more. Apple has enough work to do with all their own software and hardware that to push Windows on the ARM.
You still haven’t solved is Microsoft doesn’t allow users to buy Windows 10 for the ARM. Period. Windows 10 for the ARM comes with the system. Apple isn’t going to get licenses to have users install Windows 10.
It isn’t a simple change of a few drivers and reboot the computer. It is a massive change. I don’t think Windows 10 on the ARM is even designed to deal with the integration of CPU, GPU, AI and how they use the memory together. There is no simple switch in the compiler to make the OS compatible with the Apple Silicon.
It took Apple years to get to this point. Your best bet to to wait it out, for Parallels or something to make it work. Long term plans, nothing to be worried about at this stage.
It is a lot more work is why Apple isn’t trying to do more. Apple has enough work to do with all their own software and hardware that to push Windows on the ARM.
You still haven’t solved is Microsoft doesn’t allow users to buy Windows 10 for the ARM. Period. Windows 10 for the ARM comes with the system. Apple isn’t going to get licenses to have users install Windows 10.
It isn’t a simple change of a few drivers and reboot the computer. It is a massive change. I don’t think Windows 10 on the ARM is even designed to deal with the integration of CPU, GPU, AI and how they use the memory together. There is no simple switch in the compiler to make the OS compatible with the Apple Silicon.
It took Apple years to get to this point. Your best bet to to wait it out, for Parallels or something to make it work. Long term plans, nothing to be worried about at this stage.
Apple has always regarded the ability to run Windows as nice-to-have: a byproduct of the Intel move to Intel. It was never seen as a reason to buy into the Mac, especially as they knew there may come at time that they would be moving away from Intel. Their focus is making MacOS a platform that folk want to write native software for, not a platform where customers can be fobbed off with excuses like 'Well, we have a Windows version; just run that'.
And with only 2% using BootCamp, then it's certainly not worth compromising the enormous amount of work Apple has to do make sure this transition works smoothly for the 98% who don't need Windows running on their Mac.
As most people have realised, the main problem is the licensing: Microsoft needs to license a standalone version of WindowsARM or this isn't going to fly. But beyond that, Apple doesn't want to get saddled with supporting it if MS decides to drop it further down the line. Why might this happen? Because building and maintaining an operating system and its application for the 2% of users Mac users who're asking for it is not enough to make it viable. This number shrinks even further if people are only asking for it as an 'insurance policy' but may never actually need it or buy it. So what MS needs to do is encourage other vendors to build ARM PCs. Apple will be hands-off for this because Windows ARM has to prove itself as being worth keeping. Apple will not repeat the mistake they made with the PowerPC: having only one consumer customer for its chip meant that Apple's needs for a lower power/high performance version were not being met. If Apple is the only real customer for Windows ARM then MS will lose interest. Then we'll have to put up with a few months of "Macs aren't viable because Microsoft has stopped supporting it."
Federighi's approach is the right one. This needs to stay firmly in Microsoft's court because its Microsoft who will decide whether its worth pursuing it long-term. Apple has already put the plumbing in place to make sure the ASi supports virtual machines and containers. Other companies are already building solutions, so I'm not really sure what else Apple is expected to do.
My guess is that Microsoft is thinking on the best approach. They have CloudPC almost ready to go, and to them, that will be the most cost-effective and profitable option. It would also be the easiest way to get Windows up and running on an ASi Mac too: no installation, no update hassles, no compatibility issues. Just sign up and go.
It is a lot more work is why Apple isn’t trying to do more. Apple has enough work to do with all their own software and hardware that to push Windows on the ARM.
You still haven’t solved is Microsoft doesn’t allow users to buy Windows 10 for the ARM. Period. Windows 10 for the ARM comes with the system. Apple isn’t going to get licenses to have users install Windows 10.
It isn’t a simple change of a few drivers and reboot the computer. It is a massive change. I don’t think Windows 10 on the ARM is even designed to deal with the integration of CPU, GPU, AI and how they use the memory together. There is no simple switch in the compiler to make the OS compatible with the Apple Silicon.
It took Apple years to get to this point. Your best bet to to wait it out, for Parallels or something to make it work. Long term plans, nothing to be worried about at this stage.
Apple has always regarded the ability to run Windows as nice-to-have: a byproduct of the Intel move to Intel. It was never seen as a reason to buy into the Mac, especially as they knew there may come at time that they would be moving away from Intel. Their focus is making MacOS a platform that folk want to write native software for, not a platform where customers can be fobbed off with excuses like 'Well, we have a Windows version; just run that'.
And with only 2% using BootCamp, then it's certainly not worth compromising the enormous amount of work Apple has to do make sure this transition works smoothly for the 98% who don't need Windows running on their Mac.
As most people have realised, the main problem is the licensing: Microsoft needs to license a standalone version of WindowsARM or this isn't going to fly. But beyond that, Apple doesn't want to get saddled with supporting it if MS decides to drop it further down the line. Why might this happen? Because building and maintaining an operating system and its application for the 2% of users Mac users who're asking for it is not enough to make it viable. This number shrinks even further if people are only asking for it as an 'insurance policy' but may never actually need it or buy it. So what MS needs to do is encourage other vendors to build ARM PCs. Apple will be hands-off for this because Windows ARM has to prove itself as being worth keeping. Apple will not repeat the mistake they made with the PowerPC: having only one consumer customer for its chip meant that Apple's needs for a lower power/high performance version were not being met. If Apple is the only real customer for Windows ARM then MS will lose interest. Then we'll have to put up with a few months of "Macs aren't viable because Microsoft has stopped supporting it."
Federighi's approach is the right one. This needs to stay firmly in Microsoft's court because its Microsoft who will decide whether its worth pursuing it long-term. Apple has already put the plumbing in place to make sure the ASi supports virtual machines and containers. Other companies are already building solutions, so I'm not really sure what else Apple is expected to do.
My guess is that Microsoft is thinking on the best approach. They have CloudPC almost ready to go, and to them, that will be the most cost-effective and profitable option. It would also be the easiest way to get Windows up and running on an ASi Mac too: no installation, no update hassles, no compatibility issues. Just sign up and go.
Most of your points are valid -- except for saying that licensing is a road block. That's the easiest thing for Microsoft to fix.
As for saying that there is too little demand for ARM based Windows for Microsoft to bother being serious about: I think that ARM based PCs will continue to grow and it is not unlikely to overtake x86 based processors in the intermediate future. So, for Microsoft, it would be an investment in their future.
40 years ago Microsoft prevailed in the OS wars -- it spread like a virus -- because of marketing not because of any technical proficiency. Today Microsoft needs to look at this as a marketing problem rather than a technical one: They don't want to lose that market dominance which is their primary asset. Likewise, Apple doesn't want its Mac line to fall back into being a niche product (The exception to that might be that Apple may be hitching its Mac line to the world of iOS rather than the world of Windows and hoping that its association with iOS devices will give it the market muscle it needs to survive.)
And, I also disagree the Federighi is right in dumping it all on MS. The problem is mutual and so is the solution.
Why would Microsoft want to embarrass themselves (and their ARM devices) by allowing Windows on an M1 MacBook that will massively outperform their own devices?
Microsoft has never been one to miss an opportunity to embarrass itself.
But the chap running the show these days much more of a pragmatist. That's why he binned billions of dollars in development and now makes sure their software runs on iOS and Android.
Actually, Apple and Microsoft have had a long love-hate relationship but eventually almost always working together for mutual benefit. And, the real winners were us.
I find it perplexing that Apple is simply laying back saying "Not my problem". But it is their problem. Just because they have to work with Microsoft to fix it doesn't mean it's not their problem.
I'm hoping they drop their childish petulance and work with Microsoft to bring native Windows back to the Mac. Everybody would win. There would be no losers.
You keep throwing this word 'petulant' around, and I'm not sure you know what it means.
The interviewer asked Apple about Windows support, and Apple replied that it was up to Microsoft, which obviously it is.
LOL.... I know exactly what the word petulant means. You might try looking it up. Or, if you want an example just look at Federighi.
His response was childish and petulant. "I'm NOT! I'm NOT! I'm NOT (going to clean my room!)"
Apple changed the environment and now stands back and, without offering to lift a finger says it's all Microsoft's problem (even though Apple created the problem!)
That's childish and petulant.
This is getting bizarre. Microsoft is solely responsible for its own software, it is as simple as that. Apple is not in the business of selling Windows crap, in case you haven't noticed. As for people who claim that Windows is a necessity: in the research-intensive company I work for, none of the mission-critical software runs on Windows. Those days are really over.
LOL, no they are not. Maybe for whatever you do, but not for most businesses involved in engineering projects, processes, etc.
It is a lot more work is why Apple isn’t trying to do more. Apple has enough work to do with all their own software and hardware that to push Windows on the ARM.
You still haven’t solved is Microsoft doesn’t allow users to buy Windows 10 for the ARM. Period. Windows 10 for the ARM comes with the system. Apple isn’t going to get licenses to have users install Windows 10.
It isn’t a simple change of a few drivers and reboot the computer. It is a massive change. I don’t think Windows 10 on the ARM is even designed to deal with the integration of CPU, GPU, AI and how they use the memory together. There is no simple switch in the compiler to make the OS compatible with the Apple Silicon.
It took Apple years to get to this point. Your best bet to to wait it out, for Parallels or something to make it work. Long term plans, nothing to be worried about at this stage.
Apple has always regarded the ability to run Windows as nice-to-have: a byproduct of the Intel move to Intel. It was never seen as a reason to buy into the Mac, especially as they knew there may come at time that they would be moving away from Intel. Their focus is making MacOS a platform that folk want to write native software for, not a platform where customers can be fobbed off with excuses like 'Well, we have a Windows version; just run that'.
And with only 2% using BootCamp, then it's certainly not worth compromising the enormous amount of work Apple has to do make sure this transition works smoothly for the 98% who don't need Windows running on their Mac.
As most people have realised, the main problem is the licensing: Microsoft needs to license a standalone version of WindowsARM or this isn't going to fly. But beyond that, Apple doesn't want to get saddled with supporting it if MS decides to drop it further down the line. Why might this happen? Because building and maintaining an operating system and its application for the 2% of users Mac users who're asking for it is not enough to make it viable. This number shrinks even further if people are only asking for it as an 'insurance policy' but may never actually need it or buy it. So what MS needs to do is encourage other vendors to build ARM PCs. Apple will be hands-off for this because Windows ARM has to prove itself as being worth keeping. Apple will not repeat the mistake they made with the PowerPC: having only one consumer customer for its chip meant that Apple's needs for a lower power/high performance version were not being met. If Apple is the only real customer for Windows ARM then MS will lose interest. Then we'll have to put up with a few months of "Macs aren't viable because Microsoft has stopped supporting it."
Federighi's approach is the right one. This needs to stay firmly in Microsoft's court because its Microsoft who will decide whether its worth pursuing it long-term. Apple has already put the plumbing in place to make sure the ASi supports virtual machines and containers. Other companies are already building solutions, so I'm not really sure what else Apple is expected to do.
My guess is that Microsoft is thinking on the best approach. They have CloudPC almost ready to go, and to them, that will be the most cost-effective and profitable option. It would also be the easiest way to get Windows up and running on an ASi Mac too: no installation, no update hassles, no compatibility issues. Just sign up and go.
Most of your points are valid -- except for saying that licensing is a road block. That's the easiest thing for Microsoft to fix.
As for saying that there is too little demand for ARM based Windows for Microsoft to bother being serious about: I think that ARM based PCs will continue to grow and it is not unlikely to overtake x86 based processors in the intermediate future. So, for Microsoft, it would be an investment in their future.
40 years ago Microsoft prevailed in the OS wars -- it spread like a virus -- because of marketing not because of any technical proficiency. Today Microsoft needs to look at this as a marketing problem rather than a technical one: They don't want to lose that market dominance which is their primary asset. Likewise, Apple doesn't want its Mac line to fall back into being a niche product (The exception to that might be that Apple may be hitching its Mac line to the world of iOS rather than the world of Windows and hoping that its association with iOS devices will give it the market muscle it needs to survive.)
And, I also disagree the Federighi is right in dumping it all on MS. The problem is mutual and so is the solution.
The real issue isn’t if M$ is going to port Windows10-ARM in some secret handshake deal with Apple, the key question is, will Apple publicly document their hardware well enough that anyone can port any OS to it.
Like running Linux, FreeBSD, bare metal virtualization software allowing near-instant switching between macOS and other operating systems, etc. etc.
Someone should have asked Craig Federighi THAT question...
Comments
It isn’t a simple change of a few drivers and reboot the computer. It is a massive change. I don’t think Windows 10 on the ARM is even designed to deal with the integration of CPU, GPU, AI and how they use the memory together. There is no simple switch in the compiler to make the OS compatible with the Apple Silicon.
It took Apple years to get to this point. Your best bet to to wait it out, for Parallels or something to make it work. Long term plans, nothing to be worried about at this stage.
And with only 2% using BootCamp, then it's certainly not worth compromising the enormous amount of work Apple has to do make sure this transition works smoothly for the 98% who don't need Windows running on their Mac.
As most people have realised, the main problem is the licensing: Microsoft needs to license a standalone version of WindowsARM or this isn't going to fly. But beyond that, Apple doesn't want to get saddled with supporting it if MS decides to drop it further down the line. Why might this happen? Because building and maintaining an operating system and its application for the 2% of users Mac users who're asking for it is not enough to make it viable. This number shrinks even further if people are only asking for it as an 'insurance policy' but may never actually need it or buy it. So what MS needs to do is encourage other vendors to build ARM PCs. Apple will be hands-off for this because Windows ARM has to prove itself as being worth keeping. Apple will not repeat the mistake they made with the PowerPC: having only one consumer customer for its chip meant that Apple's needs for a lower power/high performance version were not being met. If Apple is the only real customer for Windows ARM then MS will lose interest. Then we'll have to put up with a few months of "Macs aren't viable because Microsoft has stopped supporting it."
Federighi's approach is the right one. This needs to stay firmly in Microsoft's court because its Microsoft who will decide whether its worth pursuing it long-term. Apple has already put the plumbing in place to make sure the ASi supports virtual machines and containers. Other companies are already building solutions, so I'm not really sure what else Apple is expected to do.
My guess is that Microsoft is thinking on the best approach. They have CloudPC almost ready to go, and to them, that will be the most cost-effective and profitable option. It would also be the easiest way to get Windows up and running on an ASi Mac too: no installation, no update hassles, no compatibility issues. Just sign up and go.
Like running Linux, FreeBSD, bare metal virtualization software allowing near-instant switching between macOS and other operating systems, etc. etc.
Someone should have asked Craig Federighi THAT question...