Apple to Move from Intel to ARM Processors in Future Laptops?

[3N16MA]

Originally Posted by iphone3gss

I can't think of a worse idea!

Apple licensing Mac OS X to Dell.

[archurban]

if apple believes itself to be too much confident or arrogant because they think market share will continue grow, and people will buy Apple stuff, then they will replace their own processor? then all efforts to be build great company will be fallen. they will go back to where they were struggle (say 1997?). it's what they want, go ahead. I don't care. by the way, remember this. there is no number one forever. Apple will be fallen apart someday. this will drive themselves more faster. if I am wrong, I won't buy apple no more.

[lPHONE]

This story broke 5 minutes ago and I'm already over it... Who cares if Apple wants to use something they think is new and revolutionary? Your opinion isn't going to stop them. While you're over here thinking "I can't do bootcamp with ARM" Apple is thinking "Bootcamp will be obsolite when we get done here"

[ThisIsNotMe]

Can always have a system with ARM AND x86 CPUs.

[isomorphic]

Wild speculation: It's possible that, for the short term, Apple might have both Intel and ARM processors in some of its machines. Think GPU or co-processor. This would allow a "Mac" to run iOS apps at full speed without processor emulation (albeit some chipset/environmental emulation).

I use Mac in quotes because such a hybrid monstrosity may in fact be iOS first, Mac second. Somewhere between an iPad and a MacBook Air.

It seems obvious that Apple wants this sort of blending, so why not do it in hardware?

[isomorphic]

Originally Posted by ptysell

Can always have a system with ARM AND x86 CPUs.

You beat my post by mere moments.

[commander.data]

Perhaps in 2 years ARM will have architectures that will offer the performance levels expected of desktops and laptops, but at the same time Intel's designs are getting more efficient all the time. So by the time ARM is ready to negate Intel's performance advantage, Intel will be ready to negate ARM's power advantage. I don't really see any advantage in switching Macs to ARM.

What's more while ARM may be appropriate for laptops for efficiency reasons, what is Apple going to do about the Mac Pro? Accept reduced performance, discontinue it, keep it on Intel processors and support 2 architectures in parallel?

And the Intel transition was eased because PowerPC is a more strict and well defined standard so is easier to emulate. x86 however is pretty much a mess that's yielded better performance over time because of increasing numbers of features being tacked on, but won't be efficient to emulate. So an x86/x64>ARM transition won't be as smooth as PowerPC>x86/x64 was.

[seek3r]

Originally Posted by lPHONE

Very true. Listen to the man.
There's many analysts that believe ARM will supersede Intel.

Well, first of all, don't confuse *x86* with Intel. Intel has made ARM chips in the past (XScale, StrongARM), and might in the future (including a recent rumor about apple moving to using Intel's foundries for the A5 later in the year, and the A6 or whatever the next chip will be called). For that matter, there are other x86 designers and foundries (AMD and Global Foundries & VIA) and Intel has had several other arches of its own. Intel is the largest chipmaker in the world, ARM is a chip design corp that does excellent work and licenses their work to foundries and other design houses - they're not remotely similar companies except in the sense that they both work on CPUs.

The ARM arch *may* one day supersede x86, but *Intel* isn't going anywhere anytime soon.

In the short term I don't see that happening quite yet, ARM usually focuses on low power first, not performance, and while there is a convergence in the netbook/phone/tablet areas, an iMac, MP, or MBP based on any current ARM designs for example would be woefully underpowered compared to an x86 design.

Originally Posted by 3N16MA

Apple licensing Mac OS X to Dell.

If it were done well I can think of plenty of people that would like OSX Server on Poweredge blades

[DakotaGuy]

Originally Posted by isomorphic

Wild speculation: It's possible that, for the short term, Apple might have both Intel and ARM processors in some of its machines. Think GPU or co-processor. This would allow a "Mac" to run iOS apps at full speed without processor emulation (albeit some chipset/environmental emulation).

I use Mac in quotes because such a hybrid monstrosity may in fact be iOS first, Mac second. Somewhere between an iPad and a MacBook Air.

It seems obvious that Apple wants this sort of blending, so why not do it in hardware?

Considering that a dual core 1 Ghz processor (and much less) is running iOS apps at full speed I seriously doubt a current Intel 4 Core processor (or even a dual core) would break much of a sweat running these apps at full speed emulated or not.

[applesith]

This is the biggest load of ************ I have ever seen on this site. Why would Apple redesign everything in their notebooks to make this switch? What is gained by switching?

[gikku]

not happening. not in the short-term.
the intel processor and bootcamp into windows is the Mac's door key to enterprise.

[meecect]

Another option:

they may include an instant-on iOS in addition to an intel OSX environment. Several other manufacturers have done something similar.

[TheSideshow]

Maybe a new line, but I cant see the MBP line going ARM. Possibly the Airs. Windows 8 will be ARM compatible + x86 so it could happen...

[TigerWoodsIV]

This would be a huge mistake. I could almost see Apple getting cocky and trying to pull it off again, but with the 3D chip technology announced by Intel the other day and the rapid pace they are innovating and shrinking chips while lower voltage in their planned chips, I think that if anything it'd be the opposite and Intel would move into mobile devices. ARM won't have anything on Intel's PC chips 2 years down the road.

It's not like Intel is getting complacent. They are boosting performance and increasing efficiency at a very fast pace, and with the huge lead they already have over ARM in the PC environment, how is it possible that they would catch up?

[Scottgfx]

Originally Posted by reiggin

This is the most ridiculous thing to appear on the MacRumors front page in quite some time.

Well, we thought the transition to Intel was pretty ridiculous five years ago. I bet the 680X0 to PowerPC RISC transition was feared as well.

I personally doubt that Intel on the Mac platform is going away any time soon, but I do anticipate perhaps a new line of devices in the iOS arena.

Remember what Steve Jobs said about moving onto the "next big thing".

The PC market is shrinking. It's not going to go away, but Apple has to have the "next thing" ready. Is that just another PC desktop or laptop? I don't think so.

[fry3k]

Might I direct some of you naysayers to an archived thread: http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=128198

When the Intel switch was a rumor, everyone was calling shenanigans..

I'm not saying this rumor is true, but I am saying "never say never". They are Apple, they will make it work no matter what processor they go with.

[DakotaGuy]

Originally Posted by meecect

Another option:

they may include an instant-on iOS in addition to an intel OSX environment. Several other manufacturers have done something similar.

Unless they want to make you pay for something you don't need... not necessary. The new Intel Macs that are being released right now have so much power that they could run every iOS app in emulated mode and the processor would hardly even notice it. That's today. Imagine where Intel will be in a couple of years? An ARM chip sitting next to an Intel powerhouse is not needed. As far as being instant on... I'd say my iMac wakes up from a sleep just about as fast as my iPad.

[gglockner]

I cannot believe that Apple would replace Intel with ARM. It would be a setback to the Mac: virtually everything would become incompatible once again. Remember how long it took the larger developers to create Universal versions of applications: Microsoft Office and Adobe CS.

The previous two transitions (680x0 -> PPC and PPC -> x86) weren't so painful if for no other reason than the install base was far smaller.

And putting ARM as a secondary processor so that Macs can run iOS apps? There's absolutely no need - x86 Macs can already run iOS apps well inside the iPhone emulator that comes with Xcode. The x86 processors are more than capable of emulating an ARM processor.

[MatthewAMEL]

This is about the dumbest thing I have ever seen on MacRumors.

It's not April Fools, right?

[ThisIsNotMe]

Originally Posted by DakotaGuy

Unless they want to make you pay for something you don't need... not necessary. The new Intel Macs that are being released right now have so much power that they could run every iOS app in emulated mode and the processor would hardly even notice it. That's today. Imagine where Intel will be in a couple of years? An ARM chip sitting next to an Intel powerhouse is not needed. As far as being instant on... I'd say my iMac wakes up from a sleep just about as fast as my iPad.

Yes, but what kind of video playback could I get on my Macbook Pro on international flights if it booted iOS off an ARM CPU......

[gglockner]

And let's not forget one thing: Apple moved from 680x0 to PPC and PPC to Intel because each time, the new CPU series offered a major improvement from the previous one. Today, Intel is the biggest innovator across the board in high-end CPUs - for desktop, server and laptops. There is no one on the horizon who can meet or beat Intel.

[CFreymarc]

Originally Posted by DakotaGuy

Moving away from Intel in their notebooks and desktops would be a HUGE mistake in my opinion. Intel is the big dog and they have the resources to keep innovating.

Intel has been a Microsoft bitch for the past twenty years and it shows. They did everything they did to keep the 8086 instruction set running for every piece of screwed up DOS code written by guy with more karma than formal CS educations. From that, they have not been able to shuck the old binaries and move on. Win7/64 did a good job shucking the Win 3.1 binary instruction base but it is too little too soon. Short Intel stock long term, you will do well IMO.

Originally Posted by DakotaGuy

I guess if they plan on making everything iOS then it makes a little more sense, but for true blue OSX machines Intel has the muscle.

You been drinking the Santa Clara kool-aide too much. ARM has been good at forcing app developers to recompile for the latest instruction set and dumping on old binaries. Apple sees this trend as healty. We will see a version of XCode with a target for iOS 7 running on laptops / set top media and consuming one tenth of the power as they are now with a daylight readable 24-bit color display running full video.

Apple is good kicking the third party developer base in the ass and telling them to rev their code. Wintel machines have been way too servicing toward old binaries that too many customers are too cheap to upgrade. But then, that is the mediocre / anal customers which Wintel sells to.

Better money is out there.

[AppleDroid]

Unless ARM has something major in the works (low power, huge speed increase, flux capacitor etc) I don't understand the need to move away from Intel.

I will take this for what it's worth, a total shot in the dark from two years away. Also as long as there isn't a major issue switching architecture (PPC - Intel + Rosetta bleh) I could care less as long as Adobe can keep up. (haha, I know I know)

[Scottsdale]

I welcome this idea. Intel is a disgusting anti-competitive company that cannot play fair. Apple is forced to use Intel's chipset and IGP instead of Nvidia which may have lead Apple to a decision like this. ARM is the future as is iOS, so like it or lump it. The low end Macs would probably have ARM and others both ARM and Intel. I would also welcome a switch to AMD.

[AppleDroid]

Originally Posted by CFreymarc

Intel has been a Microsoft bitch for the past twenty years and it shows. They did everything they did to keep the 8086 instruction set running for every piece of screwed up DOS code written by guy with more karma than formal CS educations.

You do realize that this was mostly driven by multi-national corporations that didn't want to pay software engineers money to update all of the ancient legacy software right? Do you also believe MS wanted IE6 to stick around for 10 years?