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

[jont-fu]

What I'm not sure of is how they will handle apps. If they switch to ARM then every single app made for macs will have to be rewritten (or run poorly in emulation). Also, if they are only going to do this on low end portable macs then when a developer wants to make an app for macs they will have to write two versions, one for arm and another for x86. I just see this as over complicating things without a clear benefit to the end user except possibly better battery life.

If the application is written in a high level language (C, Objective-C, Swift, etc.) like probably at least 99% of applications are, it does not need to be rewritten. It only needs to be recompiled to the architecture. And the .app file can contain binaries for multiple architectures like they did for PowerPC/Intel already in OSX. For example Android runs fine in both ARM and Intel platforms, there are many phones with Atom processors.

I'm not saying the switch would be a great idea at the moment, but it would be totally possible in the future and most users wouldn't notice anything.

Probably the ARM model would only install apps from the Mac App store to reduce confusion by users.

 

[thekeyring]

But if Microsoft is making Windows compatible with ARM (which I think they are - isn't Windows 8 and Office able to run on ARM?) then this may not be a problem after all.

The ARM version of windows only runs apps from the windows store (sometimes called 'modern apps', 'metro apps', or 'WinRT apps').

So iTunes, as an example, would not run on arm based Windows.

And as these Modern apps don't run on Windows 7 or older, devs might as well not build them. It's better to build the windows programs everyone is used to that will work on XP, Vista, 7 and 8 (but don't work on ARM).

 

[oldmacs]

A8X isn't sooo underpowered compared to normal intel chips, especially when you consider that most laptops sold use lower end i3s.
A8X is powerful enough for a "typical" PC user, and here we're talking about chips that'll be at least 2x as fast.

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.

 

[Rogifan]

I sometimes wonder why apple even bother with "computers" at all, and now it looks like they are moving away from them into the realm of pure "disposable" tech

Because of a research note from an "analyst" who doesn't have a perfect track record?

 

[ChrisA]

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 run VMWare on My Mac. If that stopped working I'd then have to run Max OS X as a VMWare image on non-Apple hardware.

But maybe by the end of the decade I won't need a Mac. If Apple drops more of the Pro Apps (Aperture is dead now) maybe there will be no need.

 

[Fzang]

I'm not a software developer, but what's to say that cross-compatibility and virtualization is going to be as hard as it was 10 years ago? Both hardware and software have jumped leaps and bounds in that time.

 

[Michaelgtrusa]

This was a long time coming. I'm with Apple on this one.

 

[ptb42]

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

I would have to stop, too. I have a business requirement for software that is only supported on Windows.

Currently, I run it in a Windows 8.1 VM, and use OSX for everything else. I really like the integration with my iPhone, but I would have to give that up.

 

[sziehr]

I see this happening sooner than latter but not in the desktop or in the high end macs. This will be for the ultra portable machines. They will write arm drivers for windows so it will work. I think both apple and Microsoft are seeing that the future road maps from intel are just not going to work for the ultra low power high performance future that we are heading toward. I would own a arm ultra portable mac with out any sort of issue. The machine would last for almost ever even on the current battery tech we have. The performance would be better than intel offerings. This is about intel not having a chip in the pipe that apple needs for there road mapped plan for ultra portable.

 

[Arcus]

This was a long time coming. I'm with Apple on this one.

Why? What benefit would anyone see . I only see negatives. Lets start with one of the only big name games that runs on a Apple, World or Warcraft.

 

[2457282]

Agreed 100 percent. Intel is the reason Macs gained so much marketshare. (Well one of the reasons). Having gone through the other transitions (68K to PPC), (OS9 to OSX), (PPC to Intel), its a nightmare and only worthwhile if there are significant benefits which I really really don't see. Loss of Windows compatibility, loss of program compatibility and the list goes on and on.

A move to ARM would be a form over function move, to further slim down computers which are slim enough.

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.

 

[MacFather]

Deleted.

 

[Crosscreek]

Apple will do this for our own good.

 

[neuropsychguy]

Oh, wow. I thought $1000 for a dual-core i7 Mac mini was ridiculous. Can't wait until I get to buy a $500 to $1000 Mac mini with "between Atom and i3" performance.

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. But this is a low power tablet processor being compared to laptop/desktop processors. 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.

I'd like Apple to stick with Intel processors but for them to not consider the opportunities going with ARM might provide would be short-sighted of them. As good and established as the x86 architecture is, it's probably not the architectural answer forever. ARM might just be the next big thing in desktop computing (or it might not be but companies who make OSes - Apple, Microsoft, etc. - who don't look at alternatives are going to fail).

 

[StoneJack]

The world is moving mobile, and ARM is the king of mobile.
A8 and A9 chips are best in the world.
Based on current predictions, ARM may very well have desktop performance very soon, in 1-2 years.
Apple already has a million ARM based apps as well its own business suite, iWorks, working on ARM in iOS.

Ergo, we gonna have a Mac which utilizes iOS and its apps.
It adds keyboard and mouse support to the touch support and suddenly we have a whole new game, in which Apple has much larger share than in Intel world with its Windows dominance.

Remember Steve Jobs: if you can't beat em in the game, change the game.

What we gonna have is (IMHO) a touch based ARM CPU equipped Mac notebook with amazing battery lfie and performance working on iOS. it is a iPad on steroids, doesn't need many ports (indeed only one, Lighting or the rumored USB 3.1); with all millions apps ready, including Pages, Keynote and other awesome stuff. It even has more games than any Mac with OS X.

Developers have only to add keyboard and cursor (mouse) support to their existing input methods. I guess, its already inherent in iOS since one can use bluetooth keyboards with iOS.

Its a new 12 inch Macbook with iOS.

 

[gnasher729]

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 chips inside an iPhone or iPad are run at slow clock speeds to reduce heat and safe battery life. There is no reason they can't run at much higher speeds inside a Mac.

 

[MarkusL]

The A8X blows both of those chips out of the water.....please.

If you're going to complain, at least be somewhat factual in your complaint.

Quoting the article, for your pleasure. Maybe that's where you'd like do direct your bashing?

Apple may launch Mac products that use own AP in next 1-2 years. This prediction is based on the assumption that Apple's self-developed AP performs at a level between Intel's Atom and Core i3 and is good enough for Mac. Using self- developed AP can help Apple better control the timing of Mac launches and Mac product features.

 

[neuropsychguy]

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 A8X isn't a desktop class processor/SoC (although it approaches it in performance). It's designed to run on a relatively small tablet battery pack while powering a high resolution screen and not producing much heat (relative to actively cooled desktop processors). If Apple isn't constrained by these limitations, they'll produce something much more powerful.

 

[whooleytoo]

Oh, wow. I thought $1000 for a dual-core i7 Mac mini was ridiculous. Can't wait until I get to buy a $500 to $1000 Mac mini with "between Atom and i3" performance.

Not sure about the bold bit..

Look on the bright side, it could be even thinner, smaller, lighter, and use less electricity. Who needs power and compatibility when you can have a marginally smaller, lighter box on your desk? I'd reserve judgement until we've seen lots of slow-motion panning shots and Cook and Ives talk really slowly about how wonderful it really is.

</sarcasm!>

 

[Michaelgtrusa]

Why? What benefit would anyone see . I only see negatives. Lets start with one of the only big name games that runs on a Apple, World or Warcraft.

I know it will be a major step backward in terms of compatibility, but Apple has been left with no choice, why be at Intel's mercy?

 

[StoneJack]

The more I think about the iOS on Macs, the more it makes sense.
Desktops will continue to utilize OS X, as well conventional Macbooks.

However, iPads will evolve into new iOS X, much more refined and powerful, yet keeping all advantages of iOS.

Apple strategy is to take mobile OS and make it as powerful as desktop. With this, Apple has both iOS and OSX as very powerful and attractive platforms; iOS will become much more powerful and finally ready for content creation rather than consumption. Its a two wing strategy with refined OSes.


MS took a desktop OS and tried it to make mobile (touch based), dumbing it down to Windows ARM and Windows 8, which made its own desktops look silly. Its Windows mobile didn't take off as much as they hoped so they have only one real alternative Windows, a jack of all trades.

 

[MarkusL]

Not sure about the bold bit..

Look on the bright side, it could be even thinner, smaller, lighter, and use less electricity. Who needs power and compatibility when you can have a marginally smaller, lighter box on your desk? I'd reserve judgement until we've seen lots of slow-motion panning shots and Cook and Ives talk really slowly about how wonderful it really is.

</sarcasm!>

Maybe if they put a 5400 RPM spinner in it they will convince you that it's 2005 again and the CPU performance is acceptable!

 

[StoneJack]

With ARM chips much cheaper than Intel chips, you can have a great and cheap iOS notebook, not a surface (since it doesn't use desktop OS); but something which already has its ecosystem, best and largest in the world. My guess is 699 dollars, a super iPad Pro or Macbook, depends on how u see it.

 

[rimcrazy]

There is a part of me that can believe this. Apple has done the twice already, quite successfully I might add. 68XX -> PPC and the PPC -> Intel. It is not like they don't know how to do this. I can also see that they are most likely quite upset with the delay of Broadwell that delayed their plans for new desktops.

Now with all of that being said, Broadwell was delayed simply because THE leading manufacturer of semiconductors, Intel, just needed more time to get their latest module working correctly. Apple can bitch all they like but when the leading manufacturer needs more time to get the process right, the other guys (TSMC, Samsung, et.al) are going to be in the same boat. If Apple wants CPU chips made on bleeding edge manufacturing processes this is what it is going to be. It also speaks to the fact that we are seeing the first of what I suspect is quite a few "shoes" to fall in chip manufacturing as a whole. Factories are so expensive that only a few places can even afford to build the fabs. Next generation process development is clearly slowing down such that if you thought it took too long to get Broadwell out, hold on to your shorts because my bet is the next module after that is even going to take longer.

It's going to be interesting. We've already reached the point where CPU speed is ubiquitous and really does not mean much. For most people's needs for what they need to do, current CPU's, ARM included, will meet their demands. That is why AXX based Mac's make a lot of sense. For those few (my needs as I do 3D work) where you can never have too much speed, well we are all going to be relegated to custom and more expensive workstations because, quite frankly, we can no longer ride the wave of development that gave us cheap workstations of time gone by. Now the high end user needs are truly unique and..... we are going to pay through the nose for them.

 

[groovyd]

I'd like to see Apple buy Parallels and integrate it tightly into OSX so it can just run Windows apps same as OSX apps to the user and comes that way standard.