I wonder whether Windows on ARM is crucial to the Microsoft business model.
Forgetting the Azure business for a moment and focusing on the core enterprise portal, if the business users are paying the Office 365 subscription charges and using MS Office, Outlook, Teams etc then is it really important that they use these applications on a Windows desktop?
Developers is another interesting consideration. The big players will continue developing for windows. The real growth is in developers writing web services and server less applications. As long as they’re deploying these to an Azure solution, is it actually important that they develop these using a Windows desktop?
I wonder whether Windows on ARM is crucial to the Microsoft business model.
Forgetting the Azure business for a moment and focusing on the core enterprise portal, if the business users are paying the Office 365 subscription charges and using MS Office, Outlook, Teams etc then is it really important that they use these applications on a Windows desktop?
Developers is another interesting consideration. The big players will continue developing for windows. The real growth is in developers writing web services and server less applications. As long as they’re deploying these to an Azure solution, is it actually important that they develop these using a Windows desktop?
Interesting points As you say, most new developments are for web services, (I’d add mobile apps). Microsoft is increasingly cloud-centric, so I think their solution for Windows ARM is CloudPC.
Would there be any benefits for Microsoft to have Windows running on M1 Macs? It's not as though Apple's Mac market share percentage is very high. Wouldn't Microsoft be undermining its own OEM partners if they did have an official build of Windows for Apple Silicon?
Microsoft looks out for Microsoft. They're not worried about OEM partners or anyone else as long as they can make a buck.
Partnering with OEMs is how they gained a near monopoly in the PC market.
They also partnered with Apple on multiple occasions. Unlike Apple, Microsoft is not horizontally integrated.
One reason why Microsoft didn’t put much effort into its WindowsARM because all the hardware out there for it was crap.
Now, Apple is in the unique position of having ARM machines that are truly best-in-class. This alone should be enough for Microsoft to consider putting more resources to polishing WindowsARM at least until there is an ARM SoC for everyone else.
I’m hopeful. I have to use Windows, and Apple always made the best Windows machines imho.
There’s only one chip it runs on. A slightly modified chip from Qualcomm. Much slower than the M1, much slower than the A14, or the A13.
Yes. Now, Apple has serious desktop-class ARM chips coming out that outperform x86(64) systems. Before the M1, Qualcomm's offerings was anemic at best, and the hardware running it was garbage.
These new chips from Apple could usher in the next revolution in CPU performance. It would hope ARM and Qualcomm see what's going on and go the same route that Apple has done - albeit not as elegant for sure. Microsoft could blink and decide to give Windows10-ARM another go at it.
They will. It's not a matter of "blinking". It's a matter of it being worth their while.
In the early days they formed a cartel of Microsoft, HP and Intel. But those days are long gone. Today, Microsoft has no reason to boycott any single type of hardware and every reason to be hardware agnostic.
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...
What are you talking about? Apple, specifically Craig Federighi, directly addressed that in more than one occasion. M1 chips support that hypervisor framework that obviates the usage of kernel extensions, and a Linux VM was even demoed during the WWDC keynote.
Of course it’s all properly documented, and judging from Parallels’ development blog, Apple even partnered behind the scenes with them. Apple’s recent comments, if you know how to do the Kremlinology that comes with following the company, tell you everything you need to know: it’s up to Microsoft to offer full, non-OEM versions of ARM64 Windows.
Maybe it’s not just a licensing issue, as the M1 is vastly different from those puny Qualcomm offerings, so maybe there’s more work involved. But after the basics are covered, Parallels, VMWare, Oracle, the OSS community, etc., only have to bridge the gap. It’s not like Microsoft has to develop a “VirtualPC redux”.
Interestingly, that developer said in his Twitter that x86-32 emulation was decent, so maybe Microsoft’s equivalent to Rosetta 2 isn’t *that* crappy; its abysmal performance is maybe due to those ARM PCs being severely underperforming.
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...
What are you talking about? Apple, specifically Craig Federighi, directly addressed that in more than one occasion. M1 chips support that hypervisor framework that obviates the usage of kernel extensions, and a Linux VM was even demoed during the WWDC keynote.
Of course it’s all properly documented, and judging from Parallels’ development blog, Apple even partnered behind the scenes with them. Apple’s recent comments, if you know how to do the Kremlinology that comes with following the company, tell you everything you need to know: it’s up to Microsoft to offer full, non-OEM versions of ARM64 Windows.
Maybe it’s not just a licensing issue, as the M1 is vastly different from those puny Qualcomm offerings, so maybe there’s more work involved. But after the basics are covered, Parallels, VMWare, Oracle, the OSS community, etc., only have to bridge the gap. It’s not like Microsoft has to develop a “VirtualPC redux”.
Interestingly, that developer said in his Twitter that x86-32 emulation was decent, so maybe Microsoft’s equivalent to Rosetta 2 isn’t *that* crappy; its abysmal performance is maybe due to those ARM PCs being severely underperforming.
The hypervisor framework only exists within macOS. The question rica is asking is whether they expect to ever provide enough information for other operating systems to be able to run directly on the hardware without macOS being present. I expect the answer to that is no, which is disappointing. When Apple stops providing OS updates for a given model, it's nice to be able to keep using the hardware by switching to another OS which still gets updates.
I have a macbookpro5,1 (first unibody model from 2008) which still runs perfectly, but hasn't gotten a new macOS since El Cap (10.11; last updated in mid 2018). I also have a macpro2,1 (2006 model with a firmware update) which also still runs perfectly, but Apple only officially supports up through Lion (10.7; last updated in late 2012) on it. With a near-trivial EFI shim, the macpro1,1 and macpro2,1 can run up to El Cap, which got it almost another six years of support, but can't be updated further. Both of these machines now happily run FreeBSD.
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...
What are you talking about? Apple, specifically Craig Federighi, directly addressed that in more than one occasion. M1 chips support that hypervisor framework that obviates the usage of kernel extensions, and a Linux VM was even demoed during the WWDC keynote.
Of course it’s all properly documented, and judging from Parallels’ development blog, Apple even partnered behind the scenes with them. Apple’s recent comments, if you know how to do the Kremlinology that comes with following the company, tell you everything you need to know: it’s up to Microsoft to offer full, non-OEM versions of ARM64 Windows.
Maybe it’s not just a licensing issue, as the M1 is vastly different from those puny Qualcomm offerings, so maybe there’s more work involved. But after the basics are covered, Parallels, VMWare, Oracle, the OSS community, etc., only have to bridge the gap. It’s not like Microsoft has to develop a “VirtualPC redux”.
Interestingly, that developer said in his Twitter that x86-32 emulation was decent, so maybe Microsoft’s equivalent to Rosetta 2 isn’t *that* crappy; its abysmal performance is maybe due to those ARM PCs being severely underperforming.
The hypervisor framework only exists within macOS. The question rica is asking is whether they expect to ever provide enough information for other operating systems to be able to run directly on the hardware without macOS being present. I expect the answer to that is no, which is disappointing. When Apple stops providing OS updates for a given model, it's nice to be able to keep using the hardware by switching to another OS which still gets updates.
I have a macbookpro5,1 (first unibody model from 2008) which still runs perfectly, but hasn't gotten a new macOS since El Cap (10.11; last updated in mid 2018). I also have a macpro2,1 (2006 model with a firmware update) which also still runs perfectly, but Apple only officially supports up through Lion (10.7; last updated in late 2012) on it. With a near-trivial EFI shim, the macpro1,1 and macpro2,1 can run up to El Cap, which got it almost another six years of support, but can't be updated further. Both of these machines now happily run FreeBSD.
While that might be nice, it isn’t Apple’s business model to ensure their hardware works for other platforms. They sell the whole widget. DIY enthusiasts has never been their target market.
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...
What are you talking about? Apple, specifically Craig Federighi, directly addressed that in more than one occasion. M1 chips support that hypervisor framework that obviates the usage of kernel extensions, and a Linux VM was even demoed during the WWDC keynote.
Of course it’s all properly documented, and judging from Parallels’ development blog, Apple even partnered behind the scenes with them. Apple’s recent comments, if you know how to do the Kremlinology that comes with following the company, tell you everything you need to know: it’s up to Microsoft to offer full, non-OEM versions of ARM64 Windows.
Maybe it’s not just a licensing issue, as the M1 is vastly different from those puny Qualcomm offerings, so maybe there’s more work involved. But after the basics are covered, Parallels, VMWare, Oracle, the OSS community, etc., only have to bridge the gap. It’s not like Microsoft has to develop a “VirtualPC redux”.
Interestingly, that developer said in his Twitter that x86-32 emulation was decent, so maybe Microsoft’s equivalent to Rosetta 2 isn’t *that* crappy; its abysmal performance is maybe due to those ARM PCs being severely underperforming.
The hypervisor framework only exists within macOS. The question rica is asking is whether they expect to ever provide enough information for other operating systems to be able to run directly on the hardware without macOS being present. I expect the answer to that is no, which is disappointing. When Apple stops providing OS updates for a given model, it's nice to be able to keep using the hardware by switching to another OS which still gets updates.
I have a macbookpro5,1 (first unibody model from 2008) which still runs perfectly, but hasn't gotten a new macOS since El Cap (10.11; last updated in mid 2018). I also have a macpro2,1 (2006 model with a firmware update) which also still runs perfectly, but Apple only officially supports up through Lion (10.7; last updated in late 2012) on it. With a near-trivial EFI shim, the macpro1,1 and macpro2,1 can run up to El Cap, which got it almost another six years of support, but can't be updated further. Both of these machines now happily run FreeBSD.
While that might be nice, it isn’t Apple’s business model to ensure their hardware works for other platforms. They sell the whole widget. DIY enthusiasts has never been their target market.
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...
What are you talking about? Apple, specifically Craig Federighi, directly addressed that in more than one occasion. M1 chips support that hypervisor framework that obviates the usage of kernel extensions, and a Linux VM was even demoed during the WWDC keynote.
Of course it’s all properly documented, and judging from Parallels’ development blog, Apple even partnered behind the scenes with them. Apple’s recent comments, if you know how to do the Kremlinology that comes with following the company, tell you everything you need to know: it’s up to Microsoft to offer full, non-OEM versions of ARM64 Windows.
Maybe it’s not just a licensing issue, as the M1 is vastly different from those puny Qualcomm offerings, so maybe there’s more work involved. But after the basics are covered, Parallels, VMWare, Oracle, the OSS community, etc., only have to bridge the gap. It’s not like Microsoft has to develop a “VirtualPC redux”.
Interestingly, that developer said in his Twitter that x86-32 emulation was decent, so maybe Microsoft’s equivalent to Rosetta 2 isn’t *that* crappy; its abysmal performance is maybe due to those ARM PCs being severely underperforming.
The hypervisor framework only exists within macOS. The question rica is asking is whether they expect to ever provide enough information for other operating systems to be able to run directly on the hardware without macOS being present. I expect the answer to that is no, which is disappointing. When Apple stops providing OS updates for a given model, it's nice to be able to keep using the hardware by switching to another OS which still gets updates.
I have a macbookpro5,1 (first unibody model from 2008) which still runs perfectly, but hasn't gotten a new macOS since El Cap (10.11; last updated in mid 2018). I also have a macpro2,1 (2006 model with a firmware update) which also still runs perfectly, but Apple only officially supports up through Lion (10.7; last updated in late 2012) on it. With a near-trivial EFI shim, the macpro1,1 and macpro2,1 can run up to El Cap, which got it almost another six years of support, but can't be updated further. Both of these machines now happily run FreeBSD.
Sorry, maybe I just misunderstood rica’s question.
Well, I’ve also thought about the dual boot angle, and I completely get where you’re coming from. I have quite a few old Macs, running versions of macOS more recent than the officially supported ones thanks to some flavor of dosdude1’s or MLPostFactor patch or another, and am even considering switching over to some Linux distro on the oldest ones…
Then again, for all of Apple’s paranoia with its “T2 on steroids” booting process, let us not forget that Boot Camp came about only after resourceful developers like this one straight up hacked Windows onto those newfangled, non-standard EFI Macs. Should Microsoft offer a non-OEM version of Windows for virtualization, and should it prove extra worthy running natively – hacked, yes, but legally all the same, because the only thing that should matter on a machine YOU bought and didn’t physically alter in any way should be Microsoft’s EULA – on M1 Macs, maybe Apple will loosen up a bit.
Regarding that, do not forget that either Craig Federighi or some other important Apple VP made some comments about booting different OSes on ASi Macs. At least for the time being, but perhaps even indefinitely, these are not iOS devices and are not restricted to the latest OS signed by Apple. There is definitely some hope there.
They will. It's not a matter of "blinking". It's a matter of it being worth their while.
In the early days they formed a cartel of Microsoft, HP and Intel. But those days are long gone. Today, Microsoft has no reason to boycott any single type of hardware and every reason to be hardware agnostic.
First off, this "cartel" of yours only existed in your head. It excludes major Windows OEMs like Dell, Compaq, IBM, Lenovo and Toshiba as well as lots of smaller ones.
Second, Microsoft has every reason not to be hardware agnostic. In the past, Windows had a 97% share of end user computing. Now there is Android, iOS, ChromeOS and macOS. Keep in mind: until around maybe 2007 or 2008, most people actually did like Windows. But since then, due to the growth of the Google (3 billion Android users, ChromeOS had 11% PC market share 3Q 2020) and Apple (2 billion iOS users, macOS 8% 3Q 2020 PC market share) platforms as well as several bad decisions by Microsoft, this is no longer the case by a long shot. The last thing that Microsoft needs to do is make it easier for people to use Windows part time on other platforms, because that inevitably leads to their leaving full time. For example: employers now put "we let our workers use MacBooks!" on recruiting pitches now.
Let me give you an example: gaming. Were Microsoft to make Windows on ARM licenses available to Macs, were I were Apple (or simply a major reseller) this is what I would do: offer gaming MacBook Minis. Base: $699 Mac Mini. I would deploy Windows Home ($30 to OEMs) in Parallels Standard ($20 to OEMs) and use them to preinstall the Steam and Epic app stores (both free) on optimized settings with Destiny 2 and Fortnite (both free to play) preloaded and ready to go for $750. You would be a total maroon (the old Looney Tunes insult) to even consider buying an Acer Nitro 5, Dell G5, Asus TUF or any of the other "entry level 1080p gaming PCs" with 8 GB RAM, Intel Core i5/AMD Ryzen 5 and Nvidia GeForce GTX 1650/AMD Radeon RX 5600M/Intel Iris XE system because this would outperform it in every way.
Were Apple to do this, 1. Mac Minis would fly off the shelves. 2. Developers would notice and start making apps for macOS too instead of just for Windows. (And iPadOS too ... why not?) 3. Pretty soon you wouldn't need Windows or Parallels anymore. Mac Minis would become the default machines for entry level gaming. (And entry level everything else).
Tell me how it is in Microsoft's interests to facilitate this? Exactly.
They will. It's not a matter of "blinking". It's a matter of it being worth their while.
In the early days they formed a cartel of Microsoft, HP and Intel. But those days are long gone. Today, Microsoft has no reason to boycott any single type of hardware and every reason to be hardware agnostic.
First off, this "cartel" of yours only existed in your head. It excludes major Windows OEMs like Dell, Compaq, IBM, Lenovo and Toshiba as well as lots of smaller ones.
Second, Microsoft has every reason not to be hardware agnostic. In the past, Windows had a 97% share of end user computing. Now there is Android, iOS, ChromeOS and macOS. Keep in mind: until around maybe 2007 or 2008, most people actually did like Windows. But since then, due to the growth of the Google (3 billion Android users, ChromeOS had 11% PC market share 3Q 2020) and Apple (2 billion iOS users, macOS 8% 3Q 2020 PC market share) platforms as well as several bad decisions by Microsoft, this is no longer the case by a long shot. The last thing that Microsoft needs to do is make it easier for people to use Windows part time on other platforms, because that inevitably leads to their leaving full time. For example: employers now put "we let our workers use MacBooks!" on recruiting pitches now.
Let me give you an example: gaming. Were Microsoft to make Windows on ARM licenses available to Macs, were I were Apple (or simply a major reseller) this is what I would do: offer gaming MacBook Minis. Base: $699 Mac Mini. I would deploy Windows Home ($30 to OEMs) in Parallels Standard ($20 to OEMs) and use them to preinstall the Steam and Epic app stores (both free) on optimized settings with Destiny 2 and Fortnite (both free to play) preloaded and ready to go for $750. You would be a total maroon (the old Looney Tunes insult) to even consider buying an Acer Nitro 5, Dell G5, Asus TUF or any of the other "entry level 1080p gaming PCs" with 8 GB RAM, Intel Core i5/AMD Ryzen 5 and Nvidia GeForce GTX 1650/AMD Radeon RX 5600M/Intel Iris XE system because this would outperform it in every way.
Were Apple to do this, 1. Mac Minis would fly off the shelves. 2. Developers would notice and start making apps for macOS too instead of just for Windows. (And iPadOS too ... why not?) 3. Pretty soon you wouldn't need Windows or Parallels anymore. Mac Minis would become the default machines for entry level gaming. (And entry level everything else).
Tell me how it is in Microsoft's interests to facilitate this? Exactly.
Nah. I think Mac Minis will fly off the shelves *anyway*, and Microsoft will still cave in and offer a full, non-OEM, expensive, VM-compatible ARM64 Windows license, to stem the tide and maintain relevance. If they can get away with a higher profit margin on one of those selling it to many developers who would still have to buy a Mac anyway, they will, OEMs be damned.
Even though the iPhone wasn’t even out and the mobile and desktop market share figures weren’t, just like you pointed out, the comparable in 2006-2007 to what they are today, the same argument you made could’ve been construed back then (as a matter of fact, it was). That didn’t stop Microsoft back then, and it won’t stop them now, either. Especially *this* Microsoft, which, even with their decent devices division, is pivoting more and more towards services.
While that might be nice, it isn’t Apple’s business model to ensure their hardware works for other platforms. They sell the whole widget. DIY enthusiasts has never been their target market.
Yeh! That's why they created BootCamp!
.... Oh wait! Never mind.....
Ummm ... bootcamp was created in 2006 back when Apple's most profitable and influential product was ... the iPod. Apple needed bootcamp in order to increase their then barely 3% market share. Now Apple gets more profits from 1. iPhones, 2. iPads, 3. wearables (Apple Watch and AirPods) and 4. services than Macs, and are riding integration with 1-4 to drive market share with 5. Right now, the first crop of "kids" who spent the 2010s more engaged with the iPhones, iPads (and yes, the Android and ChromeOS alternatives) than Windows PCs are graduating from college/military and entering the workforce. Instead of working to flip people away from Wintel dominance, Apple can just allow such people who were never conditioned for Windows to be the default computing experience in the first place to come to them. Example: an ideal market for MacBook Airs would be people who became accustomed to relying more on cloud/web apps with Chromebooks and Android devices than native software, for which quality options are not as available on ChromeOS and Android as they are on Windows and iOS. Apple would be advised to spend more time chasing the 3 billion combined Android and iOS users than the few million hardcore gamers and tech workers willing/able to bootcamp.
Nah. I think Mac Minis will fly off the shelves *anyway*, and Microsoft will still cave in and offer a full, non-OEM, expensive, VM-compatible ARM64 Windows license, to stem the tide and maintain relevance. If they can get away with a higher profit margin on one of those selling it to many developers who would still have to buy a Mac anyway, they will, OEMs be damned.
Even though the iPhone wasn’t even out and the mobile and desktop market share figures weren’t, just like you pointed out, the comparable in 2006-2007 to what they are today, the same argument you made could’ve been construed back then (as a matter of fact, it was). That didn’t stop Microsoft back then, and it won’t stop them now, either. Especially *this* Microsoft, which, even with their decent devices division, is pivoting more and more towards services.
Take off your Apple blinders for a second. See the points below.
1. Even if Apple's market share triples, the Windows market share will still be 70%. So "maintain relevance" ... get real!!!
2. Large companies - think Microsoft, Google, Samsung, Qualcomm etc. don't "cave" to Apple the way that suppliers who need Apple's business to survive do. If they did, Apple's thermonuclear war against Android would have worked. Even if Google hadn't dropped it in response to Apple kicking their CEOs off their board, Samsung/LG/Qualcomm would have refused to participate in manufacturing Android devices in order to remain preferred Apple suppliers. What actually happened: Google, Samsung, Qualcomm and the rest continued with Android and Apple is still forced to pay billions for components (from Qualcomm, Samsung and LG) and services (cloud products from Google) anyway!
3. That didn't stop Microsoft from what back then? Microsoft never provided Windows to be used on Macs in the first place. Instead, people would obtain "upgrade" copies of Windows and using those for bootcamp, VMWare etc. Microsoft wasn't happy about this but had no way to stop it. Anyone who purchases Windows - either via buying a Windows device or copy of the OS - is guaranteed the ability to upgrade to the next version. To fulfill this, Microsoft has to make Windows generally available and there is no way to determine whether any particular copy was used to upgrade a previous Windows install or not.
4. What about now? Well with Linux, you don't "need" to do a old style upgrade ... you can configure it to perform rolling upgrades using sudo apt dist-upgrade (for Debian distros, other distros have similar). Google exploited this: as ChromeOS is a Debian-based, Google only distributes the OS to OEMs and then provides rolling updates. (As ChromeOS is not a free OS like Android it was done to prevent piracy which would have been a real problem otherwise.)
5. When Nadella took over Microsoft, he emulated what Google did with ChromeOS. As such, Windows 10 is the last version of Windows. No more upgrades, only rolling updates. The only reason why you can still download a Windows ISO and license is because Microsoft is still obligated to facilitate upgrades from Windows 7 and 8. After those versions reach final EOL in January 2023, that obligation will cease. At that point, Windows will no longer be available to end users. It will only be available to OEMs.
6. What about ARM Windows 10? Well the upgrade guarantee only covers the same architecture. So you aren't guaranteed the ability to upgrade from x86 Windows 7 to ARM Windows 10: only from x86 Windows 7 to x86 Windows 10. What about previous ARM Windows versions? The only ones were Windows Mobile and Windows RT. There was never a guarantee to upgrade from Windows Mobile to Windows PC, just as there isn't from Windows PC to Windows Server. And Windows RT was EOLed before Windows 10 on ARM came out, precisely to prevent attempts to upgrade to it. (The five Windows RT users weren't happy.)
7. Bottom line: ARM Windows will never be made available to anyone but OEMs. And after 2020, x86 Windows won't be available to anyone but OEMs either.
They will. It's not a matter of "blinking". It's a matter of it being worth their while.
In the early days they formed a cartel of Microsoft, HP and Intel. But those days are long gone. Today, Microsoft has no reason to boycott any single type of hardware and every reason to be hardware agnostic.
First off, this "cartel" of yours only existed in your head. It excludes major Windows OEMs like Dell, Compaq, IBM, Lenovo and Toshiba as well as lots of smaller ones.
Second, Microsoft has every reason not to be hardware agnostic. In the past, Windows had a 97% share of end user computing. Now there is Android, iOS, ChromeOS and macOS. Keep in mind: until around maybe 2007 or 2008, most people actually did like Windows. But since then, due to the growth of the Google (3 billion Android users, ChromeOS had 11% PC market share 3Q 2020) and Apple (2 billion iOS users, macOS 8% 3Q 2020 PC market share) platforms as well as several bad decisions by Microsoft, this is no longer the case by a long shot. The last thing that Microsoft needs to do is make it easier for people to use Windows part time on other platforms, because that inevitably leads to their leaving full time. For example: employers now put "we let our workers use MacBooks!" on recruiting pitches now.
Let me give you an example: gaming. Were Microsoft to make Windows on ARM licenses available to Macs, were I were Apple (or simply a major reseller) this is what I would do: offer gaming MacBook Minis. Base: $699 Mac Mini. I would deploy Windows Home ($30 to OEMs) in Parallels Standard ($20 to OEMs) and use them to preinstall the Steam and Epic app stores (both free) on optimized settings with Destiny 2 and Fortnite (both free to play) preloaded and ready to go for $750. You would be a total maroon (the old Looney Tunes insult) to even consider buying an Acer Nitro 5, Dell G5, Asus TUF or any of the other "entry level 1080p gaming PCs" with 8 GB RAM, Intel Core i5/AMD Ryzen 5 and Nvidia GeForce GTX 1650/AMD Radeon RX 5600M/Intel Iris XE system because this would outperform it in every way.
Were Apple to do this, 1. Mac Minis would fly off the shelves. 2. Developers would notice and start making apps for macOS too instead of just for Windows. (And iPadOS too ... why not?) 3. Pretty soon you wouldn't need Windows or Parallels anymore. Mac Minis would become the default machines for entry level gaming. (And entry level everything else).
Tell me how it is in Microsoft's interests to facilitate this? Exactly.
I did. You ignored it and created an alternative reality.
While that might be nice, it isn’t Apple’s business model to ensure their hardware works for other platforms. They sell the whole widget. DIY enthusiasts has never been their target market.
Yeh! That's why they created BootCamp!
.... Oh wait! Never mind.....
Ummm ... bootcamp was created in 2006 back when Apple's most profitable and influential product was ... the iPod. Apple needed bootcamp in order to increase their then barely 3% market share. Now Apple gets more profits from 1. iPhones, 2. iPads, 3. wearables (Apple Watch and AirPods) and 4. services than Macs, and are riding integration with 1-4 to drive market share with 5. Right now, the first crop of "kids" who spent the 2010s more engaged with the iPhones, iPads (and yes, the Android and ChromeOS alternatives) than Windows PCs are graduating from college/military and entering the workforce. Instead of working to flip people away from Wintel dominance, Apple can just allow such people who were never conditioned for Windows to be the default computing experience in the first place to come to them. Example: an ideal market for MacBook Airs would be people who became accustomed to relying more on cloud/web apps with Chromebooks and Android devices than native software, for which quality options are not as available on ChromeOS and Android as they are on Windows and iOS. Apple would be advised to spend more time chasing the 3 billion combined Android and iOS users than the few million hardcore gamers and tech workers willing/able to bootcamp.
I think you broach on what may be Apple's primary strategy here which may be to essentially abandon the conventional PC market and let the Mac piggy back onto the world of iOS by integrating more tightly into it -- and away from the conventional PC world.
That is: Macs simply don't have the mass appeal to be a strong competitor against the HPs, Dells and Lenovos. Instead of being the market leader they have become an alternative platform imitating or complimenting the mainstream devices. Essentially they became Windows look-alikes that some preferred -- but that audience was limited to those not needing or wanting Windows but who were willing to pay top dollar.
So, while that mainstream, Windows based market was tightly restricted and shrinking the world of iOS is strong and growing. It gives the Mac line a stronger direction and a new life. It is 1984 all over again. It is (or will be), once again, the kind of challenger to the status quo Steve envisioned it to be nearly 40 years ago.
But, the downside is that it is entering into Apple's famous walled garden where you have to play by their rules. For some that works but for many in the PC world it does not. An example are kids in my grandkid's school: those running MacOS keep getting stymied where their machines will do 95% of what is demanded of them but that last 5% is a killer.
Apple has always appealed to those willing to Think Different and break the mold of conventionality. They may be returning to that philosophy.
it feels to me that Microsoft have quite a dilemma with M1 existence. should they optimise their win-ARM for M1 and sell for considerably growing Mac market? That would confirm Apple’s SoC superiority and send their Surface SQ 2 toys to dust (it’s as much “their”, as they’ve asked Qualcomm whether they can call it their own, or “collaboration” at least, because they’ve ordered some specifics from them, haha). this is not about miserly few Surfaces not being sold, rather R&D money they’ve already burned with it. well.. hard times, hard decissions mr. Nadella!
I think some seem to be glossing over that, rather than Windows will never run on Apple Silicon, that there is many efforts to run Windows or Windows programs on Apple Silicon. As to Apple will or will not be successful with Apple Silicon, US Military/Retired/Veteran shopping has the Mini 8gb/512gb version as “bestseller,” and they can’t seem to keep the Air in stock. One day they have it and for many days it is not available for sale. People buying these Macs are not buying them to run Windows.
It really isn't much of a surprise the somebody has gotten QEMU running. On my MBA I've rebuilt a number of Mac Ports as native ARM apps with no problems. There are a few show stoppers, for example RUST isn't ready yet and that has a trickle down effect on software using that compiler. However for the most part I'm rather surprised at just how well some of this stuff is building this early with the ARM based MBA's being available. As such the machines are looking good for open source even if there is some lag. The thing that really stands out though is performance of this software/system. This machine hardly warms up and compiles faster than I'd would have imagined that a fanless device could.
As for Apples backlog, I don't think it is going away anytime soon. These laptops are so good I can see them pulling significant sales from the PC space. It is actually too bad that Apple didn't debut them at the beginning of the year, with covid they would have been sold out all year. The machines are that good.
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...
What are you talking about? Apple, specifically Craig Federighi, directly addressed that in more than one occasion. M1 chips support that hypervisor framework that obviates the usage of kernel extensions, and a Linux VM was even demoed during the WWDC keynote.
Of course it’s all properly documented, and judging from Parallels’ development blog, Apple even partnered behind the scenes with them. Apple’s recent comments, if you know how to do the Kremlinology that comes with following the company, tell you everything you need to know: it’s up to Microsoft to offer full, non-OEM versions of ARM64 Windows.
Maybe it’s not just a licensing issue, as the M1 is vastly different from those puny Qualcomm offerings, so maybe there’s more work involved. But after the basics are covered, Parallels, VMWare, Oracle, the OSS community, etc., only have to bridge the gap. It’s not like Microsoft has to develop a “VirtualPC redux”.
Interestingly, that developer said in his Twitter that x86-32 emulation was decent, so maybe Microsoft’s equivalent to Rosetta 2 isn’t *that* crappy; its abysmal performance is maybe due to those ARM PCs being severely underperforming.
The hypervisor framework only exists within macOS. The question rica is asking is whether they expect to ever provide enough information for other operating systems to be able to run directly on the hardware without macOS being present. I expect the answer to that is no, which is disappointing. When Apple stops providing OS updates for a given model, it's nice to be able to keep using the hardware by switching to another OS which still gets updates.
I have a macbookpro5,1 (first unibody model from 2008) which still runs perfectly, but hasn't gotten a new macOS since El Cap (10.11; last updated in mid 2018). I also have a macpro2,1 (2006 model with a firmware update) which also still runs perfectly, but Apple only officially supports up through Lion (10.7; last updated in late 2012) on it. With a near-trivial EFI shim, the macpro1,1 and macpro2,1 can run up to El Cap, which got it almost another six years of support, but can't be updated further. Both of these machines now happily run FreeBSD.
Sorry, maybe I just misunderstood rica’s question.
Well, I’ve also thought about the dual boot angle, and I completely get where you’re coming from. I have quite a few old Macs, running versions of macOS more recent than the officially supported ones thanks to some flavor of dosdude1’s or MLPostFactor patch or another, and am even considering switching over to some Linux distro on the oldest ones…
Then again, for all of Apple’s paranoia with its “T2 on steroids” booting process, let us not forget that Boot Camp came about only after resourceful developers like this one straight up hacked Windows onto those newfangled, non-standard EFI Macs. Should Microsoft offer a non-OEM version of Windows for virtualization, and should it prove extra worthy running natively – hacked, yes, but legally all the same, because the only thing that should matter on a machine YOU bought and didn’t physically alter in any way should be Microsoft’s EULA – on M1 Macs, maybe Apple will loosen up a bit.
Regarding that, do not forget that either Craig Federighi or some other important Apple VP made some comments about booting different OSes on ASi Macs. At least for the time being, but perhaps even indefinitely, these are not iOS devices and are not restricted to the latest OS signed by Apple. There is definitely some hope there.
Autocorrect seems to have bit me. Should be rcfa, not rica.
The first Intel Macs shipped on 2006-01-10. Boot Camp’s beta was released on 2006-04-05, less than three months later. It was definitely not created in response to people making their own workarounds to run Windows directly, though the initial beta release may have been pulled a few months earlier than Apple originally planned.
While Craig said it’s your hardware and doesn’t have to boot the latest OS, that does not seem to include running non-Apple OSs. Specifically, there are not currently provisions in the boot process for a bootloader which has not been signed by Apple, and the only bootloader they have signed is their own. They could release a Boot Camp equivalent involving a bootloader they sign which can be pointed at any OS, but they have not yet discussed any such plans. It’s much less work to reverse engineer hardware drivers than it is to crack a secure boot signing key.
Comments
Developers is another interesting consideration. The big players will continue developing for windows. The real growth is in developers writing web services and server less applications. As long as they’re deploying these to an Azure solution, is it actually important that they develop these using a Windows desktop?
Of course it’s all properly documented, and judging from Parallels’ development blog, Apple even partnered behind the scenes with them. Apple’s recent comments, if you know how to do the Kremlinology that comes with following the company, tell you everything you need to know: it’s up to Microsoft to offer full, non-OEM versions of ARM64 Windows.
Maybe it’s not just a licensing issue, as the M1 is vastly different from those puny Qualcomm offerings, so maybe there’s more work involved. But after the basics are covered, Parallels, VMWare, Oracle, the OSS community, etc., only have to bridge the gap. It’s not like Microsoft has to develop a “VirtualPC redux”.
Interestingly, that developer said in his Twitter that x86-32 emulation was decent, so maybe Microsoft’s equivalent to Rosetta 2 isn’t *that* crappy; its abysmal performance is maybe due to those ARM PCs being severely underperforming.
I have a macbookpro5,1 (first unibody model from 2008) which still runs perfectly, but hasn't gotten a new macOS since El Cap (10.11; last updated in mid 2018). I also have a macpro2,1 (2006 model with a firmware update) which also still runs perfectly, but Apple only officially supports up through Lion (10.7; last updated in late 2012) on it. With a near-trivial EFI shim, the macpro1,1 and macpro2,1 can run up to El Cap, which got it almost another six years of support, but can't be updated further. Both of these machines now happily run FreeBSD.
Well, I’ve also thought about the dual boot angle, and I completely get where you’re coming from. I have quite a few old Macs, running versions of macOS more recent than the officially supported ones thanks to some flavor of dosdude1’s or MLPostFactor patch or another, and am even considering switching over to some Linux distro on the oldest ones…
Then again, for all of Apple’s paranoia with its “T2 on steroids” booting process, let us not forget that Boot Camp came about only after resourceful developers like this one straight up hacked Windows onto those newfangled, non-standard EFI Macs. Should Microsoft offer a non-OEM version of Windows for virtualization, and should it prove extra worthy running natively – hacked, yes, but legally all the same, because the only thing that should matter on a machine YOU bought and didn’t physically alter in any way should be Microsoft’s EULA – on M1 Macs, maybe Apple will loosen up a bit.
Regarding that, do not forget that either Craig Federighi or some other important Apple VP made some comments about booting different OSes on ASi Macs. At least for the time being, but perhaps even indefinitely, these are not iOS devices and are not restricted to the latest OS signed by Apple. There is definitely some hope there.
Second, Microsoft has every reason not to be hardware agnostic. In the past, Windows had a 97% share of end user computing. Now there is Android, iOS, ChromeOS and macOS. Keep in mind: until around maybe 2007 or 2008, most people actually did like Windows. But since then, due to the growth of the Google (3 billion Android users, ChromeOS had 11% PC market share 3Q 2020) and Apple (2 billion iOS users, macOS 8% 3Q 2020 PC market share) platforms as well as several bad decisions by Microsoft, this is no longer the case by a long shot. The last thing that Microsoft needs to do is make it easier for people to use Windows part time on other platforms, because that inevitably leads to their leaving full time. For example: employers now put "we let our workers use MacBooks!" on recruiting pitches now.
Let me give you an example: gaming. Were Microsoft to make Windows on ARM licenses available to Macs, were I were Apple (or simply a major reseller) this is what I would do: offer gaming MacBook Minis. Base: $699 Mac Mini. I would deploy Windows Home ($30 to OEMs) in Parallels Standard ($20 to OEMs) and use them to preinstall the Steam and Epic app stores (both free) on optimized settings with Destiny 2 and Fortnite (both free to play) preloaded and ready to go for $750. You would be a total maroon (the old Looney Tunes insult) to even consider buying an Acer Nitro 5, Dell G5, Asus TUF or any of the other "entry level 1080p gaming PCs" with 8 GB RAM, Intel Core i5/AMD Ryzen 5 and Nvidia GeForce GTX 1650/AMD Radeon RX 5600M/Intel Iris XE system because this would outperform it in every way.
Were Apple to do this,
1. Mac Minis would fly off the shelves.
2. Developers would notice and start making apps for macOS too instead of just for Windows. (And iPadOS too ... why not?)
3. Pretty soon you wouldn't need Windows or Parallels anymore. Mac Minis would become the default machines for entry level gaming. (And entry level everything else).
Tell me how it is in Microsoft's interests to facilitate this? Exactly.
Even though the iPhone wasn’t even out and the mobile and desktop market share figures weren’t, just like you pointed out, the comparable in 2006-2007 to what they are today, the same argument you made could’ve been construed back then (as a matter of fact, it was). That didn’t stop Microsoft back then, and it won’t stop them now, either. Especially *this* Microsoft, which, even with their decent devices division, is pivoting more and more towards services.
1. Even if Apple's market share triples, the Windows market share will still be 70%. So "maintain relevance" ... get real!!!
2. Large companies - think Microsoft, Google, Samsung, Qualcomm etc. don't "cave" to Apple the way that suppliers who need Apple's business to survive do. If they did, Apple's thermonuclear war against Android would have worked. Even if Google hadn't dropped it in response to Apple kicking their CEOs off their board, Samsung/LG/Qualcomm would have refused to participate in manufacturing Android devices in order to remain preferred Apple suppliers. What actually happened: Google, Samsung, Qualcomm and the rest continued with Android and Apple is still forced to pay billions for components (from Qualcomm, Samsung and LG) and services (cloud products from Google) anyway!
3. That didn't stop Microsoft from what back then? Microsoft never provided Windows to be used on Macs in the first place. Instead, people would obtain "upgrade" copies of Windows and using those for bootcamp, VMWare etc. Microsoft wasn't happy about this but had no way to stop it. Anyone who purchases Windows - either via buying a Windows device or copy of the OS - is guaranteed the ability to upgrade to the next version. To fulfill this, Microsoft has to make Windows generally available and there is no way to determine whether any particular copy was used to upgrade a previous Windows install or not.
4. What about now? Well with Linux, you don't "need" to do a old style upgrade ... you can configure it to perform rolling upgrades using sudo apt dist-upgrade (for Debian distros, other distros have similar). Google exploited this: as ChromeOS is a Debian-based, Google only distributes the OS to OEMs and then provides rolling updates. (As ChromeOS is not a free OS like Android it was done to prevent piracy which would have been a real problem otherwise.)
5. When Nadella took over Microsoft, he emulated what Google did with ChromeOS. As such, Windows 10 is the last version of Windows. No more upgrades, only rolling updates. The only reason why you can still download a Windows ISO and license is because Microsoft is still obligated to facilitate upgrades from Windows 7 and 8. After those versions reach final EOL in January 2023, that obligation will cease. At that point, Windows will no longer be available to end users. It will only be available to OEMs.
6. What about ARM Windows 10? Well the upgrade guarantee only covers the same architecture. So you aren't guaranteed the ability to upgrade from x86 Windows 7 to ARM Windows 10: only from x86 Windows 7 to x86 Windows 10. What about previous ARM Windows versions? The only ones were Windows Mobile and Windows RT. There was never a guarantee to upgrade from Windows Mobile to Windows PC, just as there isn't from Windows PC to Windows Server. And Windows RT was EOLed before Windows 10 on ARM came out, precisely to prevent attempts to upgrade to it. (The five Windows RT users weren't happy.)
7. Bottom line: ARM Windows will never be made available to anyone but OEMs. And after 2020, x86 Windows won't be available to anyone but OEMs either.
I did. You ignored it and created an alternative reality.
As for Apples backlog, I don't think it is going away anytime soon. These laptops are so good I can see them pulling significant sales from the PC space. It is actually too bad that Apple didn't debut them at the beginning of the year, with covid they would have been sold out all year. The machines are that good.
The first Intel Macs shipped on 2006-01-10. Boot Camp’s beta was released on 2006-04-05, less than three months later. It was definitely not created in response to people making their own workarounds to run Windows directly, though the initial beta release may have been pulled a few months earlier than Apple originally planned.
While Craig said it’s your hardware and doesn’t have to boot the latest OS, that does not seem to include running non-Apple OSs. Specifically, there are not currently provisions in the boot process for a bootloader which has not been signed by Apple, and the only bootloader they have signed is their own. They could release a Boot Camp equivalent involving a bootloader they sign which can be pointed at any OS, but they have not yet discussed any such plans. It’s much less work to reverse engineer hardware drivers than it is to crack a secure boot signing key.