GG1

nhughes said:

GG1 said:

nhughes said:

tenthousandthings said:

This may be a dumb question, but is there any way the mysterious chip could be used to basically run iOS inside or beside macOS?

This would actually be useful for me. There’s an indispensable Chinese data/reference/research tool I use that is iOS only.

Until we know what the chip actually is (which will require an X-ray of it, and someone willing to pony up $5,000 to let their iMac Pro be destroyed), it's impossible to say. Not a dumb question though!

From a user perspective, I don't think we're going to see vanilla iOS apps on the Mac (though the rumor is a unified code base coming in 2018 will make it easier to port and update/enhance iOS apps for the Mac). From a developer perspective, Xcode already emulates running apps on the Mac, and having an A-series coprocessor could be handy for developers.

If it really is an A10 chip, and it's not currently being used for anything in the iMac Pro, then it could be an example of Apple baking hardware in for a future software update. I find that to be unlikely, however, and would imagine that the chip is being used for something already. If it's an A10, that's a pretty beefy chip (more powerful than the T2). iFixit noted the markings found on the mystery chip are different than the A10, so I suspect it may not be an A10 at all. We'll see — I don't think this story is done with yet.

Is there something native to iOS apps that couldn't be emulated with the Mac's Intel chips? I doubt it, but I'm just guessing. There's no FaceID array, so the supposed A10 wouldn't be used for that function -- unless the FaceID array is added to a future peripheral?

BTW, that black PC board finish looks nice.

Face ID requires the A11 anyhow, so I don't think it would be related to that. And Intel chips are perfectly capable of emulating iOS, as evidenced by Xcode, but obviously a dedicated and native processor would run them better.

If it is an A10 in the iMac Pro, frankly it baffles me. A low-power A-series chip would make more sense, to me, in a notebook, where it could be used for power saving functions.

Yep, my mistake. A11 was what I'm thinking of.

Looks like AMD are not affected (https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/01/02/intel_cpu_design_flaw/). Time to buy AMD stock. Or time for Apple to use AMD chips?

nhughes said:

tenthousandthings said:

This may be a dumb question, but is there any way the mysterious chip could be used to basically run iOS inside or beside macOS?

This would actually be useful for me. There’s an indispensable Chinese data/reference/research tool I use that is iOS only.

Until we know what the chip actually is (which will require an X-ray of it, and someone willing to pony up $5,000 to let their iMac Pro be destroyed), it's impossible to say. Not a dumb question though!

From a user perspective, I don't think we're going to see vanilla iOS apps on the Mac (though the rumor is a unified code base coming in 2018 will make it easier to port and update/enhance iOS apps for the Mac). From a developer perspective, Xcode already emulates running apps on the Mac, and having an A-series coprocessor could be handy for developers.

If it really is an A10 chip, and it's not currently being used for anything in the iMac Pro, then it could be an example of Apple baking hardware in for a future software update. I find that to be unlikely, however, and would imagine that the chip is being used for something already. If it's an A10, that's a pretty beefy chip (more powerful than the T2). iFixit noted the markings found on the mystery chip are different than the A10, so I suspect it may not be an A10 at all. We'll see — I don't think this story is done with yet.

Is there something native to iOS apps that couldn't be emulated with the Mac's Intel chips? I doubt it, but I'm just guessing. There's no FaceID array, so the supposed A10 wouldn't be used for that function -- unless the FaceID array is added to a future peripheral?

BTW, that black PC board finish looks nice.

lkrupp said:

tyler82 said:

Tim Cook should be fired after ThrottleGate.

Apple should buy Tesla and make Elon CEO.

Make Woz VP of Engineering.

There’s a big difference between Musk and Cook. Cook can actually ship products. You may call Elon Musk a visionary but as a businessman he sucks. Tesla is losing money hand over fist. Musk promises the Moon (and Mars) but it’s only talk. How long has he been promising the yet to be delivered Model 3? Now he’s promising a pickup truck and an over the road tractor. He talks a good line but can’t deliver the goods. He wants to go to Mars but can’t get an astronaut off the ground yet. Everything with Musk is always years out. It’s coming... it’s coming. Oh, and what about the Home Battery he’s been promising for years?

Musk strikes me as the kind of guy who starts a project in his garage and not finish it before moving to the next project, thus littering his garage with half-finished projects.

Many bash Cook for delayed product introduction (HomePod, iMac Pro, new Mac Pro, etc.), but it takes a well-run company to produce 50+ million of anything in consumer electronics per quarter, yet Apple do this with several models of flagship smartphones.

That is why the GMs, Fords, VAG, BMW, etc of the world will overtake Tesla in electric vehicle manufacturing. Musk underestimated the "backend" of product development.

BTW, I do wish Musk's solar roof/PowerWall "project" makes it. Musk is innovative, but he has to slow down and execute. Like Cook.

racerhomie3 said:

Destroy ALL of Qualcomm Apple. I give you all of my blessings.
Those idiots are advertising in the WSJ that they are the reason why cellular networks exist.Then they will claim they created TouchID .

Qualcomm were hugely important to the development of cellular networks during the formative years (1990's), both network design, base station, and handset technology. Probably the most important single company (next to Motorola) for cellular network development (the GSM consortium in Europe was also very important).

Your angst comes from Qualcomm's licensing/royalties methods, which have pissed off the industry for years (anyone remember BREW from the 90's?). Since Qualcomm became huge AND had the best cellular modem chips, no one could stand up to them -- except Apple.

And Apple have made it clear that throttling the Qualcomm chips' throughput to level the field with Intel chips is MORE important than dealing with Qualcomm's methods. To me, this is VERY REVEALING - this is one situation where Apple aren't picking the best technological choice.

Hey, Broadcom -- buy Qualcomm and put in place more normal licensing methods so Apple can continue to use Qualcomm chips (i.e., clear out Qualcomm's "mahogony row" but leave the engineers alone).