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

[theluggage]

And Apple has another huge reason to want to go ARM. They can control the design of their chips, and customize heavily.

Ding! This.
This is the real reason that ARM-based Macs are a possibility: Intel chips are 'off-the-peg' with a fixed range of specifications. ARM-based chips are pick'n'mix - you (if 'you' have Apple's resources) license the design of the modules you want from ARM and others and hire a 3rd party chipmaker to build exactly the chip you want for your product - which is what Apple are already doing for their iDevices.

No thank you, maybe for none power users, Try running 3D apps on Arm cpus.

Yes, because 3D performance doesn't remotely depend on the GPU, number of CPU cores or clock speed. Meanwhile, Apple's first ARM product will obviously be a Mac Pro with the 6-core Xeon and dual discrete GPUs ripped out and replaced with an off-the-shelf A9.

Go google the history of ARM: they weren't always niche mobile/embedded devices - they were designed by the UK computer maker Acorn for high performance desktop workstations that out-perfomed Intel PCs. Sadly, back then, if a desktop machine didn't run DOS it wasn't going to sell, and ARM wisely re-focussed on the mobile/embedded market with power consumption as their USP. I used Acorn computers throughout the 90s and the point where they fell behind was when hardware floating point and accelerated graphics became ubiquitous on Intel machines. There was no technical reason why ARM couldn't support such things (the ARM had hooks for hardware FP and someone even came up with a patch that let it use a 486 chip's FPU; Acorn were working on replacing their old proprietary graphics with standard PC graphics cards just before they pulled the plug) - but they weren't needed for embedded or mobile. Websites that didn't follow standards and only worked on Internet Explorer didn't help, either.

Things have changed now - the largely ARM-based and non-Windows smartphone/tablet market is converging with desktops and laptops, existing ARM chipsets are more than good enough for productivity and gaming, Developers are taking standards and cross-platform support more seriously and ARM is already moving into the server market. I'm sure ARM will happily design workstation-class versions of their processors if there is a business case.

 

[Michael Goff]

To a point yes, but they've not moved on from wanting to succeed by making apple fail.

So that's why they're previewing OneDrive for Business this month and releasing a new Mac Office this year! That's also why the first touch friendly tablet version of Office was on the iPad! It all makes perfect sense now!!!

/s

 

[Nightarchaon]

I disagree. Apple has lately been sitting around waiting on Intel for new chips before upgrading the product lines. In the Apple world, Apple should dictate schedules and not the other way around. Therefore, getting control of the CPU makes sense. Ultimately it could also benefit the user in terms of quality (not short term I suspect). I say this because if all devices are on a single CPU then the OS code base can be integrated even further. This reduces code-lines and resources needed to maintain multiple, so all resources can be diverted to focusing on a single code line and that could improve quality. The UI should stay specific to the device, but the underling code or kernel could be consolidated.

So for me this is not form over function at all.

Apples rise on the desktop front required the move from power PC to Intel.. A move from Intel to a proprietary CPU that would then mean x86 compatibility went out the window would be suicide for the desktop/laptop market.

the only reason i can see for apple moving Desktops to ARM would be the wish to push locked down, appstore only iOS off of the mobile platform and into the home..

Now , for people like my mum, i have no problem with that, but for me, i need to be able to run 3rd party software and i suspect that's not going to happen on apples ARM desktops, i think they will lock them down like iOS to app store only as part of the apple control freak mentality.

apple are slowly turning from the best quality PC hardware on the market to the best quality consumer locked down "calculators" on the market.. Soon you will only be able to do with an apple product what apple allow you to do. For three years, then buy a new one.

i am glad i bought my Apple products when i did (2008 MBP and 2011 iMac) i think i got both of them at the peak of what apple "Should" be trying to be, before they slipped from being usable development and productivity tools and became Hunks of "artwork" and status symbols.

 

[glis1]

Intel has killed all innovation in the desktop CPU space. They are the worst monopoly since Standard Oil. I wish Intel would just roll over and die.

 

[Rocketman]

CompuLab has unveiled a tiny 'Fitlet' mini-PC that runs Linux or Windows on a dual- or quad-core 64-bit AMD x86 SoC (with integrated Radeon R3 or R2 GPU), clocked at up to 1.6GHz, and offering extensive I/O, along with modular internal expansion options. The rugged, reconfigurable 4.25 x 3.25 x 0.95 in. system will also form the basis of a pre-configured 'MintBox Mini' model, available in Q2 in partnership with the Linux Mint project. To put things in perspective, CompuLab says the Fitlet is three times smaller than the Celeron Intel NUC.

http://linuxgizmos.com/tiny-fanless-mini-pc-runs-linux-on-quad-core-amd-soc/

A possible dev system for OSX ARM until Apple releases hardware.

http://www.tinygreenpc.com/computers/arm-pcs.html

Rocketman

 

[alvindarkness]

Should I assume you never used PowerMacs or PowerBooks?

Seriously, I only saw two features that came out of Apple's switch to x86:

(1) Can install Windows natively, or emulate Windows at a decent speed
(2) Enables Hackintoshes

Everything else is just a compile button.

And if Windows gets serious on ARM, then it really won't matter.

I think the other benefits are easy ports of apps and games that would otherwise never see the light of day on a mac. I doubt we would have steam for mac if we werent on x86. Not to mention great pro software, particularly audio plugins, that require finely tuned assembly code to get amazing results with low latency and low cpu overhead - that can easily be ported between windows and mac platforms now that they share common processors.

I know we are talking relatively niche markets here, but I would hate to think I would need to give up my favourite OS to do a lot of tasks I do on a daily basis in the not to distant future, if this move to ARM goes ahead.

A computer is a DEVICE you use for TASKS. So long as it performs those tasks, the OS, CPU, or apps simply don't matter.

Nobody here is posting on a Mac II si using Netscape. [sadly]

Can't I have my 2017 machine import my Wordstar, Eudora, aol or filesystem, and everything in between, backups?

But can't I flip that around and ask, can my 2017 machine run the latest ProTools and all the latest plugins? If the answer is no, then we have a problem. Granted not for everyone, but losing these types of markets cant be great in the long run. This is all hypothetical of course, but my fear is the future of pro applications, and to a lesser degree gaming, if this were to happen.

 

[akbarali.ch]

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. But i wouldn't care till the point the apps that i want to use are available for arm macs. It shouldn't alienate app ecosystem for macs further. Its already wuite limited compared to windows.

The most troublesome issue of getting a mac is the number apps are far less than windows. One would argue that he and she can do all things on macs that one can do on windows, agreed, just search for unrar softare that compares to winrar. You will know instantly what i'm talking about. But other than that, Macs are really good platforms, its peaceful. I started with intel macs so i don't know the pain (if any) to convert from ppc to intel and i very much welcome the arm macs as well.

 

[rainydays]

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

Of course early adopters won't get TDM since it's a limitation of the hardware. But I doubt that Apple left it out for any other reason.

 

[paulsdenton]

Old saying...

There's an old saying up here:

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it"

The Intel platform seems to have a lot of advantages, so why mess with something that seems to work pretty well?

 

[StoneJack]

There's an old saying up here:

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it"

The Intel platform seems to have a lot of advantages, so why mess with something that seems to work pretty well?

Exactly why it won't be messed with.
iPads will evolve, not Macbooks. But lets wait a month - it will be very clear by then.

 

[NoneOfYourB]

To a point yes, but they've not moved on from wanting to succeed by making apple fail.

Apple is not a thread, they are a ~10% Company.
Google is a thread.
Microsoft has already confirmed that
Windows 10 will run on arm.

 

[gnomeisland]

There is no real benefit to switching! The Intel transition was a headache, but it achieved things, such as better performance, battery life, windows compatibility, better product pipeline etc. Intel is the reason why so many people have moved to the Mac.

Potentially there are a lot of benefits. Apple's ARM implementations seem to have a power-per-watt advantage over Intel's chips which could mean better performance and/or battery life. Most likely it would mean smaller laptops that still have 8-10 hours of battery life and retina class displays (which are very power hungry). There could also be iOS compatibility, a controversial but potentially significant advantage.

ARM chips are not powerful enough, and my understanding is that chucking a heap of ARM processors together to make one more powerful means that power consumption goes up rapidly, and you loose that advantage (of Power consumption). Staying with Intel might mean Apple needs to wait longer on occasion (Broadwell delays) but thats a price to pay for a superior, more compatible chip. Apple in the past hasn't even shown interest in rapid adoption of intel chips. The C2D remained standard for wayyyy too long.

Apple's issue in the past is that Intel hasn't always prioritized the chip designs they want. Remember that Apple spends a long time designing a product and then only makes incremental changes for 2-5 years. That means they consistent power/thermal requirements between chip generations—something Intel has not always delivered. By moving to ARM Apple could control that and customize the balance between cores, gigahertz, and GPU to best serve their design needs.

 

[deconstruct60]

Ding! This.
This is the real reason that ARM-based Macs are a possibility: Intel chips are 'off-the-peg' with a fixed range of specifications. ARM-based chips are pick'n'mix - you (if 'you' have Apple's resources) license the design of the modules you want from ARM and others and hire a 3rd party chipmaker to build exactly the chip you want for your product - which is what Apple are already doing for their iDevices.

More true only if only looking in the rear view mirror.

Semi custom CPUs are not completely outside of Intel product mix now:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/01/13/amazons_new_ec2_compute_instances_run_on_secret_intel_chips/

Intel isn't going to do completely custom work for folks, but adding a relatively narrow support chipset function to a SoC package that isn't going to be impossible if willing to pay for it.

Intel has been doing more "designed with major input from users" products. Core M is specially packaged to the both smaller footprint and thinner.

from a quick overview article. http://www.anandtech.com/show/8358/short-bytes-intels-core-m-and-broadwell-y-soc . 50% smaller and thinner, really think Apple didn't go in and ask for that several years ago???? Apple's "anorexic designs are us" is a perfect fit with Core M.

With Intel's and other components on track the "directed design" changes are significant. "... One of the biggest surprises for me was how much smaller the PCB was in Llama Mountain. ..." http://www.anandtech.com/show/8515/quick-look-at-core-m-5y70-and-llama-mountain

The very significant questions are how many of these customizations that Apple wants to make to Mac only specific to just Macs? If Apple primarily wants smaller , thinner, and lower power and Intel delivers then what motivates cranking up another design team internally?

Go google the history of ARM: they weren't always niche mobile/embedded devices - they were designed by the UK computer maker Acorn for high performance desktop workstations that out-perfomed Intel PCs. Sadly, back then, if a desktop machine didn't run DOS it wasn't going to sell, and ARM wisely re-focussed on the mobile/embedded market with power consumption as their USP.

Software stack inertia is still a major factor. For OS X ARM has zero. All the Apple custom ARM inertia is 100% behind iOS, not OS X.

and ARM is already moving into the server market. I'm sure ARM will happily design workstation-class versions of their processors if there is a business case.

ARM doesn't see the workstation business case. The restricted subset of the server market they are jumping into is the part that is primarily concerned about lower power (and lower costs). Servers that sit idle and/or have concentrated virtualized images ( a high fraction of which are not running a max load). They are attacking the server focus CPU vendor head on. It is far more in the space where desktop designs were being pressed into these lighter footprint server roles.

On the low power, good enough for mainstream productivity front... yes the phones and tablet platforms are "good enough" and getting better over time. That doesn't particularly motivate an OS switch. There are 10x as many iOS users as OS X users. If Apple ARM is going to be optimized ... which is one of those two is going to carry the most influence ?

 

[StoneJack]

Windows x86 compatibility is a legacy.
Apple is an innovator which doesn't care much for legacy.
Why should someone in 2015 worry about compatibility with Windows Xp software, which even MS doesn't care anymore?
About PC market. The sooner its left in oblivion, the better for Apple.

So, its not essential. Essential is that new iPad Pro (if it is what going to be the new ARM Mac) will be compatible with 1 million apps made for iPad. That's essential and it gives users great benefits as it justifies their earlier investment in Apple's iOS ecosystem. Unlike PC market, in mobile Apple has much higher market and mindshare.

 

[joe-h2o]

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?

Just ask Microsoft and the debacle that was Windows RT on the tablet, while simultaneously selling an x86 tablet also.

They quietly dropped it unsurprisingly.

 

[megapuppy]

I think one big thing people are forgetting about the last time Apple made an ISA switch (from PPC to x86) is that at the time, Apple's development pipeline (dev tools and compilers) were barely under their control. A lot of major devs were using crossplatform tools like CodeWarrrior, which was one of the reasons that Adobe took a frikkin' age to port all their Apps to intel on OSX.
Today, the situation is far, far different. Apple has pretty much mandated app development using Xcode (which is in a vastly-better state these days), and due to their investment in LLVM they now have a mature and highly-competitive compiler solution.
Switching to ARM really should just be a case of "choose target architecture" at this stage. Oh - and note that Apple at this stage now makes their own compiler chain (LLVM/CLANG), running a coding language (Swift) optimised for this compiler (and created by the same team) on an OS they control, running on custom hardware designed by the same company. There's some serious scope for efficiency optimisation - as well as some bold innovations in software/hardware possible there.

 

[joe-h2o]

Ding! This.
This is the real reason that ARM-based Macs are a possibility: Intel chips are 'off-the-peg' with a fixed range of specifications. ARM-based chips are pick'n'mix - you (if 'you' have Apple's resources) license the design of the modules you want from ARM and others and hire a 3rd party chipmaker to build exactly the chip you want for your product - which is what Apple are already doing for their iDevices.

There's a difference between rolling your own CPU and rolling your own CPU that is better than what Intel can supply you with.

CPU design is not trivial.

There's no way Apple (or anyone else) can compete with what Intel can offer in terms of performance, power use and cost - there's a reason that Intel is in the position it is in right now.

 

[subsonix]

There's a difference between rolling your own CPU and rolling your own CPU that is better than what Intel can supply you with.

CPU design is not trivial.

There's no way Apple (or anyone else) can compete with what Intel can offer in terms of performance, power use and cost - there's a reason that Intel is in the position it is in right now.

Really, and what is the reason?

 

[Rocketman]

Apple has made very clear it intends to make each class of product true to its own interface and use case. So OSX on ARM is a nod to chromebooks and price oriented wintel hardware. It will also facilitate OSX server on ARM for the newly popular ARM based server business HP has been spearheading.

So I would expect to continue to see Intel OSX on Power oriented Macs. It is a low end of Air, Apple TV, Mac-Mini I would expect to see an ARM based offering along with existing products.

I would not be surprised to see some confluence of OSX and iOS apps run on the so-called iPad Pro. The partnership with IBM indicates an increase in adoption of the traditional client-server model since modern consumer Macs and iPads are better thin clients that what we used to use for mainframe access applications.

2016 will see more visibility on the IBM partnership directions from mere vertical market apps. IBM is preparing for MASSIVE iOS transaction rates on its newest "13" mainframe offering.

We will also see a fanless Air, an Apple TV with modest further offerings, and CPU updates for essentially all of Apple's Mac offerings and iOS hardware. I would expect to see a smart mouse with ApplePay and a keyboard offering with a trackpad and fingerprint authorization capability to bring ApplePay to the desktop.

Rocketman

cite:
http://www.networkworld.com/article...k-look-inside-ibm-s-snazzy-new-mainframe.html

 

[Keirasplace]

There's a difference between rolling your own CPU and rolling your own CPU that is better than what Intel can supply you with.

CPU design is not trivial.

There's no way Apple (or anyone else) can compete with what Intel can offer in terms of performance, power use and cost - there's a reason that Intel is in the position it is in right now.

That'S one hell of an affirmation. Considering, that most of the market for computing devices (except the very top end) will be easily covered by ARM chips within 2 years.

You do realize that its not important that Intel can create chip 5 times more powerful if the market doesn't care either way, or are not ready to pay the price for them. Its the market that will dictate who wins this race and NOT Intel.

 

[deconstruct60]

This isn't 1990
Microsoft is a Service Company now.
They need to have their Software everywhere.
They have Office for iOS - there will be a windows for ARM.

Software as a service still makes you primarily a software company. It is a shift in delivery mechanisms and revenue stream regularity but the software still at the central core of the business.

The need to be on multiple platforms is far more driven by limits to growth. Once have 90% of the classic PC market there isn't much growth if the classic PC market has entered the mature ( almost maximum market penetration ) zone.

Will be a Windows for ARM ??? How about there has been one ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_RT ) for almost 4 years.

Will there be a Windows 10 on ARM? yes, again already exists. Will there be a Windows 14 on ARM? Maybe , maybe not. If MS reverses the dive of Windows Phone then more tilted yes. If entry level Surface (and some 3rd party) systems grow to about 2-3% of classic PC market (i.e., about half of what Apple represents ) then even more tilted to yes.

In part it depends upon Intel's counter-attack on ARM. Intel can't run deeply subsidized prices forever. If they turn the corner on volume and performance and win a fair number of designs without major subsidies then Windows on ARM will fade. There won't be any 3rd party systems and MS won't prop up the non "Pro" version of Surface up forever ( there hasn't been an update in a while http://www.zdnet.com/article/what-microsoft-didnt-announce-today-an-arm-based-surface-mini/ ) .

In part there was no Surface 3 ARM because if look at what can be done with Intel Cherry Trail (and other solutions finally getting out the door on this new process tech ) there is no enormous gap between Intel and ARM solutions aimed at the same design space.

 

[aliensporebomb]

Yep.

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.

I went thru the huge pain in the rear of dealing with the PPC to X86 conversion. There was a compelling reason.

With ARM there's no benefit for me. All of my existing software runs and works. I'm not going thru a giant upgrade headache all over again.

 

[joe-h2o]

Really, and what is the reason?

They're very good at it.

The closest contender to Intel for CPUs is AMD, and they fell by the wayside (and they were no slouches).

Right now Intel have a commanding lead in CPU design and, crucially, manufacturing ability and process size.

Like it or not, the world is not going to move away from x86 on the desktop any time soon. Any chip designed in-house is going to have to offer something extremely compelling to be able to beat anything you could buy from Intel.

Plus, if any contender is even out on the horizon, Intel will pull its finger out and actually ramp up the R&D - they're pretty slack right now because they know that no one has anything to beat them, but that will change if they get some actual competition.

 

[jrswizzle]

No, it really doesn't.

I'd take my iPad Air 2 with it's A8X over a laptop with a core i3 any day of the week.

Hell, this Dell I'm on a work has a Core i3 and I want to hurl it out the window it's so damn slow with simple things like email, web browsing and office.

 

[joe-h2o]

That'S one hell of an affirmation. Considering, that most of the market for computing devices (except the very top end) will be easily covered by ARM chips within 2 years.

You do realize that its not important that Intel can create chip 5 times more powerful if the market doesn't care either way, or are not ready to pay the price for them. Its the market that will dictate who wins this race and NOT Intel.

I assume you're ignoring every business machine in this "most of the market" situation.

Is it ok if I save this comment and ask you to respond to it in 2 years? January 2017, ok?

I think you'll find that x86 isn't going anywhere anytime soon. Certainly not within 2 years.

You're also ignoring that the market is what put Intel where it is - they have the best product, so businesses and people have bought them. If the market looks like a competitor will emerge, Intel will increase their efforts in R&D and become more aggressive at marketing (i.e., price drops). They're hardly pushing the envelope right now because they have no need.

Unless they drop the ball massively, Intel are in a commanding position that they won't be toppled from easily - they have the best chips, some of the best fabs (which is not a trivial thing to have) and a great deal of experience.