Exactly. Probably Abobe and MS will rewrite their software for the new chip. But there will be lots of specialized software that will not be rewritten, probably running slowly and poorly in emulation. One advantage of Mac over iOS is the wealth of software available, almost (but not quite) on par with Windows. I can see many people migrate to Windows out of necessity.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Plans to Ditch Intel and Use Custom Mac Chips Starting in 2020
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Exactly. Probably Abobe and MS will rewrite their software for the new chip. But there will be lots of specialized software that will not be rewritten, probably running slowly and poorly in emulation. One advantage of Mac over iOS is the wealth of software available, almost (but not quite) on par with Windows. I can see many people migrate to Windows out of necessity.
Let's see if an ARM CPU can produce sustained high clock frequencies with lower power consumption than the x86-64 architecture. iOS devices do not perform the same intense functions as do current x86-64 CPUs, so this remains to be seen.
Microsoft is moving toward a walled-garden approach with their ARM version of Windows. Last I knew, Windows on ARM required all apps to be installed through the Windows App Store (WAS). No third party apps can be installed unless approved by MS and distributed through the WAS.
For me, this is part of the reason I am taking this rumor seriously.
Also, while Windows does run on ARM, there are several limitations with it, including its inability to run 64-bit software.
The future is beginning to look more segregated to me with Chrome OS, macOS, and Windows all advocating for their own software stores. This trend may be the last nail in the coffin for software ownership if as a result software companies decide to make their software platform agnostic by selling software-as-a-service, much like Adobe.
it's not just developers. Anyone who uses any form of windows or linux on their mac's right now will likely have to move. Either natively (bootcamp) or Parallels (Virtualization).
Consider MS is also in a bit of turmoil over Windows right now. They just dismissed Terry Myerson, and it sure looks like UWP is not going to catch on. Intel might have to start getting nervous, as even MS is starting to see their services and enterprise department as their future--it's no longer all about Windows. MS also is going at it with WOA, though reviewers speak of the device as always feeling at its limits, and emulated x86 software is painful. Unfortunately, most people have moved on to smartphones as the "computer" they use and seek to upgrade regularly, and MS is pretty much totally screwed there.
I think in Apple's mind, they are showing willingness to drop into lower price ranges, but only on a device that runs on a CPU that they have made. They can't produce an Intel-based computer for much less than MacBook Air and have it be made decently AND still make money as a hardware company. Intel's pricing is too high for the kind of CPUs Apple wants, and Apollo Lake Macs would quite simply suck. The solution here is to create a new device running iOS down into more affordable (for Apple) laptops. It might actually go over really well with those that are iPhone/iPad users but aren't Mac users. Would there still be room for higher end x86 Macs capable of running legacy software? Maybe so. Maybe Apple could bridge the two, offering an x86 "co-processor" of sorts. I bet AMD would have no problems supplying this through their open interconnect standards. It's fun to speculate, as the possibilities are far more open than the PPC to Intel transition. The high-speed low latency interconnect, the IGP, the integrated memory controller, APIs like Vulkan and OpenCL, they all set the table for something very different.
I think in Apple's mind, they are showing willingness to drop into lower price ranges, but only on a device that runs on a CPU that they have made. They can't produce an Intel-based computer for much less than MacBook Air and have it be made decently AND still make money as a hardware company. Intel's pricing is too high for the kind of CPUs Apple wants, and Apollo Lake Macs would quite simply suck. The solution here is to create a new device running iOS down into more affordable (for Apple) laptops. It might actually go over really well with those that are iPhone/iPad users but aren't Mac users. Would there still be room for higher end x86 Macs capable of running legacy software? Maybe so. Maybe Apple could bridge the two, offering an x86 "co-processor" of sorts. I bet AMD would have no problems supplying this through their open interconnect standards. It's fun to speculate, as the possibilities are far more open than the PPC to Intel transition. The high-speed low latency interconnect, the IGP, the integrated memory controller, APIs like Vulkan and OpenCL, they all set the table for something very different.
I'm stoked. An Apple desktop ARM could enable some freakin' amazing technology that would be impossible for others to copy.
My only reservation is whether Macs will still be able to run Windows. If MacBooks can't run Windows exactly as it runs on a Wintel then their high cost won't be as easy to justify for many users.
Example: I use my Mac to run a program that can connect to my car and customize the car's ECM firmware. This saves me hundreds of dollars that would otherwise be used to buy a Windows laptop. I don't often need to run Windows but when I do it's mission critical.
If an ARM CPU must emulate x86 hardware then it would have to be smokin' fast relative to Intel's CPUs. I guess in a few years we'll find out just how good Apple's ARM team are.
My only reservation is whether Macs will still be able to run Windows. If MacBooks can't run Windows exactly as it runs on a Wintel then their high cost won't be as easy to justify for many users.
Example: I use my Mac to run a program that can connect to my car and customize the car's ECM firmware. This saves me hundreds of dollars that would otherwise be used to buy a Windows laptop. I don't often need to run Windows but when I do it's mission critical.
If an ARM CPU must emulate x86 hardware then it would have to be smokin' fast relative to Intel's CPUs. I guess in a few years we'll find out just how good Apple's ARM team are.
Not true at all.
Windows has shipped for ARM devices for >5 years and on many, many vendors' hardware.
Consumers didn't buy it and developers didn't develop for it. Notwithstanding Microsoft spending billions to try to bootstrap it. As of now it is stillborn.
Hopefully Apple will have more luck.
Good point and just habit to type the "X". I was just thinking about the possibility of seeing macOS 11.
...which do not fully support quite a number of applications, run them only at severe costs of performance, or cannot run them at all.
This is a great move. No longer held hostage by Intel. If you need to run Windows apps just buy a cheap Windows pc or laptop in addition to your Mac. I'd rather Apple push the technological envelope and not have to worry about legacy hardware of competitors. I would never leave macOS for windows.
you're kind of missing the point though that Windows on ARM was an abject failure because of the reasons you listed.
are we convinced MacOS on arm would be any different?
the one thing we get by staying on the largest supported platform in the world x86, is open source software compatibility. sure, everyone's first party stuff might go store based, but as long as their are viable open source alternatives the stores can rot in hell.
Microsoft nor Apple have done a decent job at convincing the biggest players to support their stores as primary use case on their computers. Even "SAAS" stuff like Adobe still requires you to download and isntall on local workstations. Adobe CC still runs thick client (for now)
[doublepost=1522705842][/doublepost]
Tell me. What is intel holding Apple back on? Considering there's no Mac using Intel's latest and highest end CPU's, that's a bold claim to make. it's more like Apple's profit margins are holding Apple back
This scenario could happen
macOS becomes closed system like iOS and every app will be subscription based. Nightmare for those who cannot afford some pro apps.
macOS becomes closed system like iOS and every app will be subscription based. Nightmare for those who cannot afford some pro apps.
For the same reason they are moving away from Intel CPUs. Control.
Apple has already wanted to control all phases of their computer creation process. Getting rid of the Intel CPU is another step along the way. Moving to another vendors CPU when they could make their own CPU that is just as fast or faster is not their style.
Also, Apple makes money hand over first, AMD has been losing money until the last couple of months. This makes AMD a company Apple could buy for their technology, or let them fail and pick up the pieces at a bargain price. It's about business, not technology.
it was hardly noticed because the PPC chips at the time were lagging seriously behind available x86 CPU's (especially in the mobile space). The entirety of PPC that Apple needed was able to be emulated via x86 without much noticable hit in performance (in fact in many cases, emulated PPC ran faster on the intel chips than on PPC directly).
Apple backed in Rosetta into OSx for multiple versions to ease this transition.
as of right now, Arm cannot emulate x86-64 in sufficient performance ways to do this today. 2020? maybe, i'm not a fortune teller, But if they want to go down the same route they did previously, ARM currently is not there.
people would have noticed however by Lion (or mountain lion) the PPC support was dropped entirely and none of the old software (if still in use) would carry over.
IF they managed the emultion, it would hit useres the same way that the dropping of 32bit in Hihg Sierra hits people. However, without emulation layer, it would be a full 100% cut off.
Anyone wondering how this is going to play out should read the sad story of Windows for ARM.
With broad availability continuously since 2012, it has shipped on premium hardware from many vendors. Even Microsoft themselves pumped money into hardware -- ultimately selling it at a loss to try to drive adoption.
The problem was similar to the original chicken-and-egg Macintosh problem: developers don't like to develop for unpopular platforms, which means that consumers and IT departments don't buy it, which means that developers don't develop for it.
Good luck, Accountant King.
With broad availability continuously since 2012, it has shipped on premium hardware from many vendors. Even Microsoft themselves pumped money into hardware -- ultimately selling it at a loss to try to drive adoption.
The problem was similar to the original chicken-and-egg Macintosh problem: developers don't like to develop for unpopular platforms, which means that consumers and IT departments don't buy it, which means that developers don't develop for it.
Good luck, Accountant King.
Exactly
Power management on ARM has been better with scaling and such.
In terms of performance/watt; Cavium and Qualcomm dissipate about the same type of heat as an equivalent Xeon.
The cost is in the same ballpark also.
People don't seem to get it.
Qualcomm and Cavium are fighting an uphill battle against Intel in the server arena.
They make some in roads in the infrastructure area but they are running Linux and the applications are not off the shelf applications with a GUI.
ARM is not inherently better than Intel in the server arena.
A large amount of your power comes from high speed I/O on the chip.
16 or 32 lanes of PCIe is power hungry.
6-12 channels of DDR4 even if it's LP-DDR4 consumes a lot of power.
An ARM desktop CPU is a lot different than the A11.
Until the Threadripper series from AMD, Intel had been sitting on its hands for years with minor incremental CPU increases of 10-15% and the core count was stuck at 4 for 10 years plus the CPU generations were now 2 years apart instead of 18 months. Intel has been pathetic and only has increased core count because of AMD and I am no fan of AMD but at least they push Intel to move the technology forward. I fully support Apple pursuing their own superior CPU's.