Apple B8 chip?

theluggage said:

It's not a "true/not true" question: its a case of how many customers require bootcamp/parallels/vmware as an essential feature. I'm sure that number is rapidly declining, since we seem to have passed "peak Windows".d ::: snip :::

Click to expand...

"How many" may not be the correct criterion. I feel it's a huge "security blanket" feature for those converting from Windows (not quite the same population as those who have already switched, or have a known need to run Windows). It seems to me to be a significant tipping point factor. "Well, even if it turns out I hate OS X, I don't have to ditch the hardware, go back to my old PC, or buy a new one."

Like many features in complex products, there's a lot of comfort knowing that, IF you need the capability, it's there. Whether you actually use it is besides the point.

My guts tell me that "Intel Inside" is a major factor in Apple's ability to hold and build both market share and unit sales.

mtneer said:

Acknowledging that you are expressing your opinion here.. But is there a reasonable metric to compare ARM's best to Intel's best? Everyone has a subjective opinion to say that ARM is not up to par with Intel, but on what metric and by what magnitude? It would be great if someone would invent a metric that would enable a lay person to compare ARM's best to Intel's Baytrail, or Core or Xeon's.

Click to expand...

This is an excellent point. The only ARM processors available for testing are held back by thermal ceiling throttling in small mobile devices and sitting in mobile device boards and systems.

In the same way, Intel CPU that folks want to compare them too are sitting in larger boards and systems and allowed to run under much higher thermal tolerances with active cooling systems, etc.

ARM is currently much better when running in its "native" environment than Intel, while at the same time Intel's processors obviously blow ARM out of the water in their "native" environment.

While it would be interesting to compare these CPU's in otherwise identical environments, there are no complete computer systems comparable to each other really.

There have not been enough mobile devices powered by Intel x86 processors and not enough laptop/desktop systems powered by modern ARM processors to be able to make any kind of proper like for like comparison.

ARM is much more impressive in the mobile computing sector, and Intel is obviously the benchmark in the traditional laptop/desktop sector.

It would be extremely interesting to see how a fully unleashed and optimised laptop/desktop ARM computer system would compare and vice versa for Intel chips in the mobile space.

If the performance comparison is close, I can easily see Apple being super successful in doing a conversion. Software-wise this is much easier than the PowerPC to Intel move they made, because their are excellent professional compiling tools available today that make it essentially a one-click operation for developers to use the exact same binary to compile for x86 or ARM. Using the Mac App Store, it would be extremely easy for Apple to support both platforms during the crossover years.

For Windows support, adapt a virtual machine software compatible with ARM architecture. VirtualBox already has this for example. BootCamp problem solved. Just have an Apple-branded VM app that is extremely simple to use with high performance.

In the end, all other things being equal, if it makes financial sense to Apple, and they can make it a virtually seamless experience for the customer, then it will happen. Especially if it allows them to go into new form factors not currently possible with Intel, and allows them to control the supply chain much more directly than today being reliant on Intel's releases.

ApfelKuchen said:

I feel it's a huge "security blanket" feature for those converting from Windows

Click to expand...

I think that was a big factor back in 2006, and contributed to the success of Apple's switch to Intel. However, back then the vast majority of people had only encountered Windows - or, more specifically, Internet Explorer, Outlook and Office. These days, even most Windows users will also be iOS or Android users, and more open-minded about the applications they use.

If an ARM-based Mac appeared (and I'm only saying its possible, not probable) I'd expect it to be some sort of touch-screen convertible, capable of running iOS apps within OS X, aimed firmly at people who were outgrowing their iPads.

...and the motivation would be if the MS Surface looked like eating into Apple's sales.

mcnallym said:

main thing would be lower power draw/less heat output from CPU allowing the mini to get thinner ( if that is important to you ) and need less power ( less important on a desktop )

for macbook airs then would allow thinner and lower power draw allowing longer battery life

In theory as well then the ARM is also available at a lower price and available customise to your specific needs which is why Apple can produce there A series, and this allows you to differentiate from other suppliers.

With x86 then going to be stuck with what Intel prepared to supply whether in there Core, or Atom series processors.

In terms of the user then not sure how many of the iOS apps are actually useful on a desktop/laptop as they have all been designed for iPhone/iPad access with touchscreen whereas Laptops/Desktops are still mostly Keyboard/Mouse and not sure that is going to change in the near future.

Will Apple really want to maintain two seperate Desktop Architectures as can't see ARM scaling to fit the Mac Pro market for a while

Click to expand...

For all those reasons the only way I could see it making sense is as a new line of Thin clients to shared grunt Mac. You could have a machine with enough capacity to handle each users email and general computing that when it has network access could stream full desktop demand apps from a higher power machine. In much the same way the Watch is a thinterface to an iPhone.