bsimpsen

horvatic said:

Unless they can keep all the features that are currently in place including Bootcamp it would be the worst mistake Apple could do.

Let me rephrase this for you...

Unless Apple can keep that 2% of Bootcamp users, attracting 10% more people to the Mac would be the worst mistake Apple could do.

In articles here and elsewhere in recent years, I've read that the cost of an Intel CPU in an entry level MacBook Pro is in the vicinity of $200, or as much as 20% of the cost to build the machine. The cost of the A family CPU in an iPad Pro is about $50, and outperforms the Intel part. I imagine Apple will pocket some of the $150 savings and pass the rest to the customer, along with the performance improvement (particularly battery life). Even if the price and performance gaps are smaller than rumored, they're still going to be significant.

If you think that improvement in the price/performance ratio for Macs won't attract more people to the platform than Apple stands to lose (2%max), I'd like you to explain why.

winston2010 said:

If I were Apple, I would make a x86 instructions compatible processor with ARM core.  Modern Intel processors used the same technique with RISC-like core and x86 microcode.  This way, no transition issues, if not 100% compatible with existing software.

Apple does not have a license to use the x86 instruction set. They'd need one to do as you suggest.

larryjw said:

lkrupp said:

Any ideas on how Apple will handle the X86 code of current apps to run on ARM architecture? I am not educated on this. Is ARM close enough to X86 that the transition will be easy or will it require a Rosetta-like translation framework like the move from Moto 68000 to X86 did. Will we have universal binaries again or something else during the transition?

Well, both ARM and X86 chips are micro coded. Could Apple microcode the x86 instruction set into the ARM?

No, that would require a license from Intel. That ain't happening.

The controversy over Apple using (as opposed to exposing, logging, monitoring, sharing, etc.) location data to avoid plunging iPhone owners into legal jeopardy by using UWB in locations where it's prohibited is the result of misinformation. To continually bring it up without mentioning that simply prolongs the controversy. Where's the controversy over carriers using location data to determine which cell tower should handle a user's phone call?

If they do what's shown in the patent, I'll be forced to abandon the iMac. My keyboard is currently located 13 inches below the bottom of my iMac Pro. I can't raise the keyboard without provoking RSI injury to my right arm, and I can't lower the display without exacerbating cervical disc problems.

This would be the worst possible design for someone like me, the crap ergonomics of a laptop without the benefit of mobility.

I think they're just covering bases here.