Apple Diversifies Chip Orders for iOS Device and Apple Watch Amid Predictions of ARM Macs

[deconstruct60]

According to AppleInsider:



So an iMac with up to 32 cores (8 CPUs x quad cores/CPU)? Wow.

This smells alot like Apple just simply took a "server market" ARM solution ( for example what is now AMD's A1100 "Seattle"

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8362/amds-big-bet-on-arm-powered-servers-a1100-revealed

and stuffed into a iMac/Mini prototype box with a modified reference board from the non Apple ARM vendor.


Those 8+ cores really don't make alot of sense in a mainstream PC. So much so that there aren't many serious vendors going after that specific space. Servers? Yes. Intel's home turf? No.

While 8 64-bit sounds like "huge horsepower" that is not what these low power server chips are actually optimized around running a larger block of relatively low activity virtual machines and running them more cost effectively.


I'd be quite surprised if Apple had any high core count stuff in the pipeline. The iOS devices don't need those. The A8X doesn't even have 4. Apple stopped at 3. Probably making it an even "power of 2" bigger really didn't get much bang-for-the buck.

Mucking around with an AMD ( or could be acquired by AMD/Samsung/etc) ARM implementation has the same shot across the bow impact when Apple sits down with Intel. Apple says "We'd like smaller package , better GPU , etc." and Intel says "I'm not sure". Followed by Apple saying look what the boys cooked up in the lab.... no Intel chip. Intel : " well that earlier wish list is more interesting now that I think about it... ."

If this does happen, it would be interesting to see Apple totally redo Mac OS X in Swift.

Redoing the core OS in swift makes zero sense. One of Swift's benefits is easier integration to the outside of the OS stack ( to the OS X foundation libraries). Inside of the OS kernel and foundation there are no OS X foundation libraries. The OS kernel and foundation provide services and support to those higher level libraries.

The infrastructure is just Darwin which is largely stripped of the OS X foundation libraries (that is why it is open source).


Almost all of this Mac ARM stuff is far more click bait , ad view generation that any based on some substance. It is trotted out because it will be a long term ...... the Apple business motivation for it is just largely bankrupt.

 

[ksuyen]

I don't see this happening anytime soon, not until ARMS is as/more powerful than Intel PLUS supporting backwards compatibility with x86.

 

[Col4bin]

I'm sorry but once they stop making Intel mac, is the day I stop buying them

I think its a really bad idea to drop x86 platform, I can only see bad things from this shift including a more locking down of OS X. Think walled garden for OS X as well.

Exactly and plays right to Apple's recent hardware strategy. (Just look at the latest locked down Mac Mini.)

 

[bruinsrme]

huh? why?

people probably said the same thing with PPC.

Moving to ARM gives them a whole lot more flexibility and they're not tied to Intel's timeline.

Yes because we all know how fast apple is to bring the and greatest to their laptops.

 

[Virtua1]

The death of the Intel mac would be no small matter...

Note to Apple:

The ONLY reason I jumped ship and bought my first mac was the switch to Intel and the ability to run bootcamp with Windows. This one move made the entire experiment a success. Now Apple had made SO much more off of the sale of that ONE Intel mac computer, as I have nearly switched my entire family to Apple.

But there are limits to what I will accept, because when I need a computer, I need a COMPUTER, and all of the flexibility that entails.

• The soldered mac mini passes that limit.
• The 5K iMac that can't be used as an external monitor passes that limit.
• Any mac that is not Intel will DEFINITELY pass the limit.

Now I am embarking on the iOS developer path. I'd rather LOVE my next machine, as I do now, than RESENT it.

 

[ParanoidDroid]

ARM Macs? Please don't! This is the beginning of the end.

Does Apple still care about professional customers? All professional software would have to be rewritten and recompiled. That would take years, decades... remember the shift from Carbon to Cocoa? And what about performance and stability?

What happened to Microsoft's failed experiment a.k.a. Windows RT? That didn't sell very well, did it? No!

What am I supposed to do with an ARM-based but probably razor-thin MacBook Air? Just browsing the web and posting crêpe on forums? Well, guess what; you can do that already today – with your razor-thin iPad Air 2.

I do understand if Apple is seeking technological independence from Intel and total control over their hardware in favor of predictable roadmaps and their beloved shareholders. However, I don't see clear benefits for us, customers, yet!

Please enlighten me in case I'm wrong with my anxious opinion.

 

[gavroche]

Certainly we can agree that there is a massive difference between asking software vendors to re-build their apps for a new platform (again) for an existing market versus creating a new platform for a new market.

I can agree with that, yes.
But two thoughts on that: First, people could have made the argument that using an Intel mobil chip in re ARM would make moving apps to the iDevices simpler. That is a moot point now. And second, The transition to Intel was really not that bad, was it? Granted, im not a programmer... but i think the many people were surprised that it was as smooth as it was.

----------

Yep lets go on another crazy switch for NO REAL REASON. The A8X is not powerful enough to run a desktop class operating system.

The only thing switch would do would mean having to recompile things and confuse people over what platform they are buying as it will effect what they are able to do on their Mac.

Maintaining two versions of OSX would also be a logistics nightmare. It would also take Apple around 2-3years to get OSX right for the platform, as it wasn't till SL that we had a proper Intel OS that performed as it should.

I've got no doubt that Apple is testing ARM based Macs, and so it should be. It would be testing a heck of a lot of things. Heck they're probably tested Intel Tablets and iPhones, but that doesn't make it a good idea.

You lost me the moment you said "No Real Reason"... If you can't recognize some of the reasons/benefits for the switch, then any discussion wouldn't really merit the time.

 

[Macist]

ARM chips first appeared in the 90s on Acorn Archimedes desktops and were ridiculously powerful at the time.

When ARM was spun-off from Acorn the chips found a niche in mobile but if there was a customer no reason why there could be ARMs targeted at laptops and Desktops. There's already server designs.

You have to understand that moving to ARM wouldn't mean a Mac with a mobile phone's CPU.

 

[flat five]

I'm sorry but once they stop making Intel mac, is the day I stop buying them

i might agree with that.
i guess it all depends on how the software roadmaps change when/if this time comes.

my main worry would be that the developers who are currently making cross-platform stuff will be like "screw this" when needing to switch processors for the mac side..
that said, i really have no idea of the development tools/assistants which might be in place to continue to allow cross platform development.. who knows, maybe apple will make it easier for a developers to make software on arm alongside their windows counterparts.

---
fwiw, i was excited when apple started using intel and really, i think that played out ok.. this time around, i think i'd rather them stick with intel but that could be due to (my own) lack of knowledge about ARM.

 

[jdawgnoonan]

seems like we'll see a shift to ARM in Macs by the end of the decade. Makes too much sense not too.

Those processors need to be a lot better than they are now for anything other than the lowest end Mac. I guess if they want to get into the 500 dollar laptop market it makes sense, but I would be in no rush to buy one.

 

[flat five]

Well apples move to sealed, non user maintainable throwaway units in the last 4-5 years has sadly driven me back to PCs, I cannot and will not replace a functional system "just because the manufacturer has decided its obsolete to drive sales"

heh.. consumers need to take responsibility for this as well.. apple isn't making you buy anything.. consumers are always demanding new!new!new!

if something is a year old.. it's outdated.. look at the buyer's guide here.. the only mac which you should buy right now is the mini since a release happened within the last few months.

i'm not saying apple has nothing to do with it either.. just that most of this throwaway madness is the fault of consumers.. but we just like to pass the blame onto someone else

 

[SlCKB0Y]

How is it confusing? Cross compiling has never been easier and from the user side, it would be nearly transparent. Do they really need to know that the hardware is different underneath?

So this is what you think is a good idea:

1. Introduce entry level products which run on ARM, and keep x86 for the high end stuff.

2. Operating system has to be actively maintained across two architectures.

3. The ARM port of OS X will have zero applications upon release, and ARM is not powerful enough to emulate x86 (unlike PPC being emulated on x86).

4. The fragmentation creates a significant amount of consumer confusion ("What do you mean my MS Office 2011 won't run?").

Good idea right? It's been done before - it was called Windows RT.

----------

The Intel transition started June 2006, Adobe had a Intel PS beta out December 2006.

Err, the intel transition was announced and began June, 2005. The first Intel Mac shipped in february 2006.

I don't think Apple really care about people who need Windows/Boot Camp.

Well they should - the flexibility of being able to run x86 operating systems either natively or using para-virtualisation is one of the main reasons I switched back to Apple after years away. I suspect a lot of people find this feature important.

 

[gavroche]

Given the direction of the last couple generations of products, I'm starting to think my 2012 mini will be the last mac I own for a while. I looked at the MPB this spring and couldn't find one that gave me the features I wanted at a fair price. I'm sure superstar DJs and celebs don't mind the expense, but Apple seems to be funneling everyone who's not wealthy into the entry-level tier. To hear that the only Mac I'll be able to afford in the future is essentially just a headless iPad , is very disheartening.

I suppose I'll do hackintosh builds, as long as OS X remains something I want to use. Eventually my only choice will be linux.

I really have trouble following your thought process here. If these future rumored machines are more powerful than current machines, and cost less money as well... what is the complaint exactly?

 

[SlCKB0Y]

OSX already did have binaries which worked on both Intel and PowerPC processors for years, the support was dropped on Snow Leopard (although Rosetta still worked on it). So Apple does have much experience on how to do the transition and even how to sustain it if needed.

As for virtualization, it would still be possible to virtualize Linux like most developers these days do, including me.

I think you are confusing virtualisation with emulation. You could virtualise PPC Linux, but there are almost no distros, hardware and software support is terrible, and an efficient virtualisation platform does not yet exist. When Apple switched to Intel, the Intel processors were about twice as fast as the G5's out at the time and they were much more power efficient and ran much cooler.

Unless Apple wants to start with a completely clean slate in terms off applications (i.e. platform suicide), they are going to need to emulate x86 on ARM. Emulation requires a massive amount of overhead and would not be feasible until ARM is 1.5 or 2 times as fast as the x86 raw speed they want to emulate. ARM has to get to those kinds of speeds AND scale their TDP at least linearly... if they can't do both these things then there is no reason to switch.

 

[iZac]

Apple moved to Intel because IBM stumbled and couldn't produce the chips that Apple needed to remain competitive. Whilst that isn't the case quite yet, ARM chips are closing in fast on Intel.

But further than that, despite the consumer interest in running Windows on Mac hardware, it was expressly forbidden initially - Apple only introduced bootcamp after the success of a widely publicized hacking competition to get the hardware booting in Windows. Apple simply couldn't let casually interested parties go through a complicated and potentially malicious 3rd party solution to get XP running on their new Macbook Pro. The point is, Windows support was not Apples intention, it was simply to achieve competitive hardware.

Windows support has in fact crippled the expansion of OSX development when belligerent and lazy companies like AutoDesk who have a massive impact on the industry wont bother to write most of their programs for OSX, when you can just boot in Windows. This is absolutely terrible for the ecosystem. Conversely AutoDesk have made great strides into writing iOS programs. I can guarantee that if the iPad had mouse support, AutoDesk would immediately write a version of AutoCAD for iOS, but it took them 3 or 4 years to do the same for OSX intel.

Apple have a much more competitive development market on iOS and an installed user base that is hundreds of millions stronger. Even if a million Windows users boycotted Apple for not letting them run Windows 7 on their Mac hundreds of millions more would praise them for opening up the Mac to the incredibly vast and lucrative iOS development market.

Big hitters like Adobe and Autodesk will feverishly leap onto a mature iOS platform running on Mac hardware in a way they never have for OSX. It's not a matter of if, but when

 

[coolspot18]

seems like we'll see a shift to ARM in Macs by the end of the decade. Makes too much sense not too.

ARM processors are still too slow; what benefit is there beyond using them in mobile devices?

Windows support has in fact crippled the expansion of OSX development when belligerent and lazy companies like AutoDesk who have a massive impact on the industry wont bother to write most of their programs for OSX, when you can just boot in Windows. This is absolutely terrible for the ecosystem. Conversely AutoDesk have made great strides into writing iOS programs. I can guarantee that if the iPad had mouse support, AutoDesk would immediately write a version of AutoCAD for iOS, but it took them 3 or 4 years to do the same for OSX intel.

Companies have always shied away from Mac support - this is not new. Back in the Mac OS days, there were hardware cards to enable dual boot support. In today's world, if it's not for boot camp, it will be a virtual machine.

Until Apple becomes ubiquitous, the Mac platform will always have the issue of being second fiddle to Windows.

Big hitters like Adobe and Autodesk will feverishly leap onto a mature iOS platform running on Mac hardware in a way they never have for OSX. It's not a matter of if, but when

I'm not so sure about that - porting software from x86 to ARM will be painful, just like it was from PowerPC to Intel. And like I said, ARM processors are still so much slower than x86.

 

[SlCKB0Y]

An Apple-designed ARM would be far above an Atom and an i3. The A8x's multicore performance (Geekbench 3) is in the range of i3s.

So A8X best score is in range of processors less powerful than any computer Apple releases and that is with the benchmark software running on a drastically lighter operating system with absolutely minimal multitasking taking place to have to share CPU time with.

What happens when Apple designs an ARM processor that isn't constrained by tablet/phone power requirements? What happens when it's a desktop processor? Performance can increase drastically.

What happens when they can't get the performance gains they require? What happens if they get the massive performance gains needed to over take the top intel processors but power consumption and TDP don't scale linearly and go through the roof?

You think that Apple just snap their fingers and get the required triple performance out of ARM whilst scaling power consumption and heat output at an appropriate rate?

 

[coolspot18]

If these future rumored machines are more powerful than current machines, and cost less money as well... what is the complaint exactly?

It won't be - that's the point.

 

[iZac]

...Until Apple becomes ubiquitous, the Mac platform will always have the issue of being second fiddle to Windows.

I'm not so sure about that - porting software from x86 to ARM will be painful, just like it was from PowerPC to Intel. And like I said, ARM processors are still so much slower than x86.

I do agree with you, the transition would be just as painful from x86 to ARM.

However, perhaps I'm too optimistic, but when you look at the sheer amount of new (admittedly more simple) software big companies have developed from scratch for iOS - in what - 4 years, for a complimentary device like the iPad, just think what they could produce if it was Apple's primary OS / hardware platform.

case in point:

http://www.autodesk.com/mobile-apps

http://www.autodesk.com/solutions/mac-compatible-software (and Maya was already on Mac before AutoDesk bought it!)

Mac OS may never be ubiquitous, but iOS already is. Again, I think there seems to be so much trust and acceptance from both developers and consumers that purchasing software on iOS is much more feasible future for software development than OSX, which will always be competing with Windows, even on their own hardware.

Imagine if (full) Photoshop could be $20 because it has a iOS/ARM user base 100 times what it ever was on OSX/Intel? I'm sure plenty of people who currently pirate Photoshop etc would finally buy it if the economy of scale bought the price right down.

As you say though, the hardware just isn't good enough on ARM yet, but I think it won't be long.

 

[gavroche]

It won't be - that's the point.

And from where have obtained the performance specs of processors that are years away from development? Can you please link to your source, I'd like to read..

 

[rainydays]

• The 5K iMac that can't be used as an external monitor passes that limit.

A bit unfair. Should they have waited for Thunderbolt 3 before releasing the 5K iMac? I think that it will get target display mode in future updates.

I do wish that they would have supported TDM at lower resolutions however, but I guess it didn't make sense for them to do so for whatever reason.

I completely agree with soldering RAM however.

 

[redheeler]

A bit unfair. Should they have waited for Thunderbolt 3 before releasing the 5K iMac? I think that it will get target display mode in future updates.

I do wish that they would have supported TDM at lower resolutions however, but I guess it didn't make sense for them to do so for whatever reason.

I completely agree with soldering RAM however.

No, 5K "early adopters" will never get Target Display Mode because of the limitation of their hardware.

By the way, I sure hope what you meant about soldered RAM is that you agree with what the quoted poster said about it

 

[StoneJack]

I think that we are missing in this discussion some important points.You can't split OS X in two, because of inherent confusion. So OS X will continue to develop as before for Pro line, including Macbooks, Macs, Mac Pros etc.

If so, OS for ARM Macs: I think its going to be iOS. iOS has installed base of 700 million users, active software buyers, great ecosystem, 1 million or more apps. No consumer can confuse iPad or iPhone software for Mac software. iOS is very power efficient and can handle almost everything.

if its iOS: it needs adding up cursor and precision input (mouse, trackpad, etc) for content creation.

if it iOS: it doesn't work with many inputs, just needs Lightning or USB 3.1 in future.

It has software limitations, but so do Chromebooks yet they sell and begin to undersell Windows.

Then what about hardware? Will it be limited to iPad Pros (maybe aka Macbook 12 inch?). There is no Chrome desktop, isn't it? So Mac mini with iOS is out of question to not confuse users. Therefore, its a line of powerful, content creation oriented iPad pros (12 inch iPadbooks). With abundance of native software it is a far bigger ecosystem than anything Chromebook or Windows RT.

Can it be expanded to say 13-15 inch iPad Pros? Why not if market is there. It can be expanded to iPad mini line, say iPad mini with keyboard and trackpad can be very very mobile. It is different from Surface because it doesn't use desktop OS; it uses mobile OS from the start.

it will be the third line of hardware iPad Pro line. With it, the end of Windows will be greatly accelerated.

 

[lowercaseperson]

I think that we are missing in this discussion some important points.You can't split OS X in two, because of inherent confusion. So OS X will continue to develop as before for Pro line, including Macbooks, Macs, Mac Pros etc.

If so, OS for ARM Macs: I think its going to be iOS...

...It has software limitations, but so do Chromebooks yet they sell and begin to undersell Windows...

...There is no Chrome desktop, isn't it? So Mac mini with iOS is out of question to not confuse users....

I like what you are saying. I think it makes sense. The problem (as I see it) with what you're proposing is that there are a LOT of people who ARE confused about what exactly a Chrome book is...and I'm not sure Apple would go for that.

I don't say that to be nit picky and start a war...but I'm genuinely curious. How many normal people know what they are getting when they buy a Chrome book? In my circle of 25-35 year old friends I can confidently say at least 20% would think a Chrome book is a full featured laptop (granted unless they lose wifi they may never figure out that it isn't ).

I just can't see Apple selling a product that isn't a "computer" to people who think it is a "computer." Like you said, nobody is going to confuse an iPad for a MBP...but throw a keyboard and track pad on it...and I'm not so sure anymore. If there was a way to make an absolute distinction between the two - I think you could be on to something. The question is...how? If I bought an iPad and put it in a aluminum ClamCase and went around telling people it was the new Apple laptop...most of them would probably believe me.

All that to say I really do think your on to something. I'm just wondering how that absolute distinction between "iOS device" and "Pro device" (Chrome book vs. Laptop) would be implemented.

P.S. I didn't mean to chop your quote up too much...if I completely missed your point disregard what I said.

 

[mattdocs12345]

If iOS is to be used on laptops and be attractive then it really needs to evolve and it still might flunk just like Windows 8 did. The problem is that iOS was designed for touchscreen while laptops have a touchpad input device that works differently. Microsoft tried really hard with Windows 8, they forced touchscreen input on all desktops, including those with large desktop monitors and it simply didnt work well (Windows 8 was one of the reasons why I switched from Windows to Linux). Apple would really need to redesign iOS UI wise to make it more suitable for a laptop which could shoot them in the foot in the mobile market as the current UI is very efficient on a cell phone. You really can't have a jack of all trades and having a dedicated OS/UI for mobile and a desktop/laptop is really what works well.