Apple Plans to Ditch Intel and Use Custom Mac Chips Starting in 2020

[lysingur]

I've read through a lot of this thread and gave it some thought. This move is not to enhance OSX. This is a move to enhance iOS. Expect over the next two years iOS apps getting more advanced and OSX apps getting dropped or not updated. I have a feeling that all current OSX apps will not function without major work, but iOS apps will work pretty much seamlessly.

The upside is probably Apple will release a Surface Book competitor.

Whether people like it or not, Apple's core business is their cloud services and the iPhone. By 2020, macOS will be even more marginalized than the present as a platform. The computing habits of teenagers and early tweens centre around mobile devices. It only makes sense for Apple to adapt to this trend and position macOS as an extension of iOS for developers and pros alike.

Surface Book competitors are already here. It's called the iPad Pro. I wouldn't be surprised if Apple introduce mouse support on the iOS or an entirely new product line similar to the iPad Pro but runs on the ARM-based macOS after 2020.

 

[crsh1976]

Exactly.

I don't know why people are expecting Apple to put a smartphone processor into a laptop or desktop.

What I gathered from this announcement is that Apple will expand their chipmaking skills beyond phones and tablets... and will create new chips that are appropriate for higher-wattage Mac laptops and desktops.

What makes you think the sort of chip design Apple uses for their iDevices can scale for desktop/laptop use?

Not saying it's impossible, but we have yet to see anything close to multi-purpose, resource/processing-heavy use cases that your every day X86 computer handles, often without us even noticing everything going on in the background.

Let's make that clear : an ARM-based Apple computer is a fine idea on paper, but if it's barely capable of keeping up with the slower X86 chips, that's not going to be good-enough for a lot of folks. Especially not given the price bracket Apple products go for, and especially not given the all-soldered trend they've been pushing so you need to replace something every 2-3 years (which is likely the business model they're going to factor in, consumers who keep their computers for 5+ years are bad for business).

 

[WatchFromAfar]

Not really. It's a convenience that many of us have taken advantage of. In my case, it stops me from having to own a PC to run the handful of Windows-only games I enjoy playing.

The thing is it's, as you say, a nice "convenience" now. I'm sure Apple doesn't want it's customers buying Microsoft Windows licenses and lets face it the amount of PC gamers buying Apple hardware to run games is absurdly small and Apple won't loose any sleep turning it's back on them.

 

[tech3475]

I'm not explaining myself well, but your comment is proving my point.

Why should Apple's business model be sympathetic to their competitors? If Windows is so important to your work, then you'd either need two laptops or to ditch OS X. OR ditch Windows and do all your work in OS X.

But by building their own chips, Apple could take the Mac in a different direction - one that integrates even better into the Apple ecosystem (which is what Apple is all about after all).

I don't know too much about computers, but comparing this situation to smartphones, no-one complains that they can't boot their phone into both iOS and Android. They have two phones if having both OSs is important to them.

I'm not a big Apple fan, and since Jobs died I feel Apple have been following the crowd. But I like this idea - Apple are leading again. They're not worrying about how this will impact people but focusing on all the benefits of having custom chips in their Macs, knowing that people will scream and moan, but ultimately they'll adapt to the change and prefer it.

In the same way that Apple dropped CD drives and persuaded users to find another way, rather than waiting for a new technology to become adopted and then removing CD drives.

Can you imagine if Apple were still using PPCs...?

I know why Apple would want to do this, I get that.

The reason I bought my rMBP though was because it could do everything I needed, locally, one way or another.

As I said before, the reason why Apple may want to care is that it could be the difference between someone buying a mac or buying a windows machine. The course I graduated from last year basically required an x86 compatible machine due to things like VMs and still every so often I need to run something which doesn't have an OSX alternative (which is no problem as I have Windows for these).

The issue Apple faces is whether people who need windows is small enough out of their already relatively small market share that people like me are a negligible loss.

Comparing this to smartphones is flawed because the software is usually there and the usage may be different.

As to answer your question about PPC, if they were still using PPC I wouldn't be posting from a Macbook.

 

[Michael Scrip]

What makes you think the sort of chip design Apple uses for their iDevices can scale for desktop/laptop use?

I just assumed the fine people in Apple's silicon department would be able to work wonders if they weren't thermally and physically constrained inside a tiny phone.

Besides... aren't there ARM servers now? Weren't they supposed to challenge Intel in the enterprise server market?

Maybe I'm misremembering...

 

[nikumer]

Kalamata? For realz? Kalamata is a large town in Greece, famous for its olive oil and weed. I guess that's what Apple is smoking right now to think of **** like that ...

 

[George Dawes]

best news ever

apple should do it all in house , looks like they will too

i recall the days of motorola's crass incompetence with the g4 - never again

 

[crsh1976]

I just assumed the fine people in Apple's silicon department would be able to work wonders if they weren't thermally and physically constrained inside a tiny phone.

Besides... aren't there ARM servers now? Weren't they supposed to challenge Intel in the enterprise server market?

Maybe I'm misremembering...

Qualcomm, and others, do have ARM server products on the market, and the performance is reportedly excellent (Qualcomm's top contender rivals Intel's using half the power), so everything is indeed possible.

Let's be clear, it's not just a matter of cramming more cores into a chip while increasing the TDP, Qualcomm's Centriq chips aren't just bigger versions of the phone-bound Snapdragon series, it's an entirely different spin on the ARM architecture, and it runs optimized applications as well.

If Apple wants to go that route for their desktops/laptops, let's hope they're creating a new breed of chips too, I'm sure they're not stupid/arrogant enough to believe they can slap an A chip in a laptop and call it a day.

 

[LordVic]

I just assumed the fine people in Apple's silicon department would be able to work wonders if they weren't thermally and physically constrained inside a tiny phone.

Besides... aren't there ARM servers now? Weren't they supposed to challenge Intel in the enterprise server market?

Maybe I'm misremembering...

ARM servers are basically an expiriment that has mostly died off. they showed promise in extremely parralel workloads, but in pure performance, especially where most servers are used for, they were incapable of keeping up. And in situations where they were suitable, they either put out similar heat anyways, or had other limitations. The few companies who were making them basically stopped.

I think there are one or two companies that still do, but for the most part, servers are not running ARM. they found when ARM scaled up to the same envelope as x86, there just wasn't enough benefit or overal performance.
[doublepost=1522839455][/doublepost]

Qualcomm, and others, do have ARM server products on the market, and the performance is reportedly excellent (Qualcomm's top contender rivals Intel's using half the power), so everything is indeed possible.

they were far from excellent. they did well in SOME workloads (encryption for example), but other loads, such as pure number crunching throughput, they were significantly slower.

it will depend entirely on workload
https://blog.cloudflare.com/arm-takes-wing/
for example

OpenSSL public key encryption? Fantastic performance.
OpenSSL Symetrical Key performance? 1/3rd of what Intel is doing

there's a great disparity between its benefits and it's weaknesses. something Intel doesn't suffer nearly as much from.

its a very very mixed bag and you'll find that ARM server usage is very limited in scope.

 

[DNichter]

A switch to ARM has a direct impact on what people do both professionally and personally. It's not about ARM, a switch to new technology, or Apple trying to make more money. There is nothing "old" in trying to use the best tool available to meet your objectives.. that is until those tools no longer work for your purpose. If the swap to ARM works for you, great. It won't work for a bunch of people (no idea how many).

If all you do is run applications on the iPad, this could be a nice swap.... that assumes people keep developing those apps. It will be interesting to see the impact on their Mac sales as well as the requisite impact on those building iPhone and iPad applications.

We'll just have to see how successful they are developing a laptop/desktop chip and what products they move to ARM and what they don't. I think it's much more likely only their low end Mac would get converted over for a number of years. It's a lot harder, costs a lot more money, and is more time consuming than most think to develop the CPU and supporting chipsets.

Apple still has to prove they can compete on the desktop. Benchmarks on a phone are not equivalent to benchmarks on a desktop.

Completely agree. As technology moves forward though, people will either need to adapt to new tools for the job or stick with the old way of doing things. I'd imagine most companies will want their people moving forward, applying new tools and tech to their business. Saying there is only one way to do things is a quick way to get left behind, I see it first hand every day. iOS is already the best and most profitable platform for developers. Extending this to the Mac is a logical thing to do. Apple will lose some customers and developers along the way, but the people who adapt will far outweigh those who don't.

 

[maflynn]

APFS was the writing on the wall. Let’s call it Apple’s foreshadowing.

How so? Please explain how a file system indicates that Apple is going to change from intel to ARM?

 

[Val-kyrie]

Your questions to me have been answered by others, but to add to this I would suggest you read up concerning the severe inherent limitation of Windows on ARM, aka Windows S. There is already an uproar and revolt against this on Windows and technology websites for many reasons, including the inability to run 64 bit software, the slow emulation of 32 bit x86 software, and the need to purchase all software through the Windows 10 App Store.

I switched to Mac specifically because Apple transitioned from PPC to Intel, and I will leave when Apple transitions away from Intel. Apple will lose software developers who are unwilling to code for x86 on Windows and ARM on macOS and those who stay will likely port their software, but it will not have the same quality and features.

As many others have pointed out, this is not the same type of transition as from PPC to Intel. The former transition gave Apple a degree of parity with Microsoft in terms of hardware, offered developers similar hardware (albeit different software) for which to code, and allowed them to attract Windows and Linux users, many of whom use VMs. This transition only serves to split developer resources, segregate the user base between consumers and prosumers/professionals (of whom the latter will leave for lack of support), and isolate Apple. There will be no virtualization and many overestimate the capabilities of emulation (Virtual PC and Rosetta were no panaceas).

I think Cook is overestimating the loyalty of the masses and underestimating the need for the larger Apple ecosystem to maintain iOS support. This will begin Apple's slow plodding march back into obscurity and the masses are too ignorant to understand the implications. Even if Apple manages to succeed as a company (I have my doubts), it will no longer be a platform for anything but consumers. So much for Tim's rebuttals to FaceBook that "our customers are not our product."

So they are running linux?

iCloud is running on Google's cloud hosting, which is unix (dunno what variant) based.

[doublepost=1522811681][/doublepost]Most people are concerned if their favorite App makers Adobe would recompile their apps for the new platform? I say they would, because they are not doing a service for the Mac market, they too love to use Mac products in their respective companies. Most creative professionals love Apple products and use them extensively. Microsoft makes their products too for the same reason it makes sense for them to sell on Mac. Apart from that Microsoft has already shown how to make Windows apps work on ARM processors with little to no penalty.

The problem with this train of thought is this: PC hardware is much cheaper for equal or better performance. I work in Hollywood and I'm beginning to see a great deal of previously Mac-only shops migrating over to PCs because the current Apple hardware is just NOT fast enough. This is not an opinion; it's been actively happening for about 2 years now, and it's accelerating.

To address your post (and others') further, ARM compatibility is still NOT x86 (or x86_64) compatibility. Even if Windows ran well on ARM, no programs would, as they're not compiled for ARM. Unfortunately, there's also an annoying habit software and hardware companies have where they'll provide drivers for only the latest stuff they make, leaving your mouse (I'm looking at you, Logitech), sound card (Creative Labs), and so on without full support (this happened on Windows when they moved from XP to Vista and completely changed the way the OS handled drivers).

And for those harping about how great the move from PPC to intel was (and it was), and how this will be awesome again, keep in mind that Apple reached critical mass with the Mac by, arguably 2010 (definitely by 2013 -- half a decade ago). When they moved from PPC, all of 8 people owned Macs -- they're now a household name and Apple's in a position to piss off a lot of their users.

Sadly, the opposite viewpoint could bite them, as well -- macOS comprises less than 10% of all PCs... I'm wondering just how much of an incentive most companies (especially dual-OS, like Adobe) will have to re-write their code. Worse, what if they simply 'port' the software over? It'll work, but it'll work like crap (it reminds me of 'ported' software back in the Amiga days).

[doublepost=1522842425][/doublepost]

Completely agree. As technology moves forward though, people will either need to adapt to new tools for the job or stick with the old way of doing things. I'd imagine most companies will want their people moving forward, applying new tools and tech to their business. Saying there is only one way to do things is a quick way to get left behind, I see it first hand every day. iOS is already the best and most profitable platform for developers. Extending this to the Mac is a logical thing to do. Apple will lose some customers and developers along the way, but the people who adapt will far outweigh those who don't.

The problem is that some tools cannot be adapted to iOS and require a fully functional OS. It is not always a matter of moving forward; sometimes, it is a matter of being unable to use professional tools (for me, certain research programs) within the limitation of new technology (i.e. iOS). Fortunately, most of my programs also now run in Windows, something which was not true two years ago.

 

[obitow]

sorry for taking so long, work and all'

many DB engines don't store data as simple plain text, and when you're using it in binary formats (backups for example), how that file is created is specific to the platform and OS it is created on.

the one that I'm dealing with daily is called Progress Openedge. DB backups are not portable between CPU types, nor even OS's. you cannot take a simple backup from a Linux and restore it on windows. Heck, you can'ttake 32bit linux DB backup and restore it to 64bit linux.

this isn't the only DB engine like this. it has to do with the ways that data is written by the engine. in my work, I don't particular need to know the engineering behind it, But I spent the last 7 years supporting a few hundred clients on this platform. Almost all of them major financial institutions.

Wow, this sucks. But I guess it at least provides a better performance than cross-platform solutions.

 

[maflynn]

I think Cook is overestimating the loyalty of the masses and underestimating the need for the larger Apple ecosystem to maintain iOS support.

I think so, and if apple does transition over to ARM, I'll be looking for a different solution, but with that said. I'm surprised by the level of positive remarks here. While you can say that many apple fans will accept anything from apple, but then we have a story from Engadget: I can’t wait for laptops with Apple’s own chips

I wonder if the computing landscape has changed and the majority of users don't need intel.

 

[DNichter]

Your questions to me have been answered by others, but to add to this I would suggest you read up concerning the severe inherent limitation of Windows on ARM, aka Windows S. There is already an uproar and revolt against this on Windows and technology websites for many reasons, including the inability to run 64 bit software, the slow emulation of 32 bit x86 software, and the need to purchase all software through the Windows 10 App Store.

I switched to Mac specifically because Apple transitioned from PPC to Intel, and I will leave when Apple transitions away from Intel. Apple will lose software developers who are unwilling to code for x86 on Windows and ARM on macOS and those who stay will likely port their software, but it will not have the same quality and features.

As many others have pointed out, this is not the same type of transition as from PPC to Intel. The former transition gave Apple a degree of parity with Microsoft in terms of hardware, offered developers similar hardware (albeit different software) for which to code, and allowed them to attract Windows and Linux users, many of whom use VMs. This transition only serves to split developer resources, segregate the user base between consumers and prosumers/professionals (of whom the latter will leave for lack of support), and isolate Apple. There will be no virtualization and many overestimate the capabilities of emulation (Virtual PC and Rosetta were no panaceas).

I think Cook is overestimating the loyalty of the masses and underestimating the need for the larger Apple ecosystem to maintain iOS support. This will begin Apple's slow plodding march back into obscurity and the masses are too ignorant to understand the implications. Even if Apple manages to succeed as a company (I have my doubts), it will no longer be a platform for anything but consumers. So much for Tim's rebuttals to FaceBook that "our customers are not our product."






[doublepost=1522842425][/doublepost]

The problem is that some tools cannot be adapted to iOS and require a fully functional OS. It is not always a matter of moving forward; sometimes, it is a matter of being unable to use professional tools (for me, certain research programs) within the limitation of new technology (i.e. iOS). Fortunately, most of my programs also now run in Windows, something which was not true two years ago.

Some tools may not be available currently, but that doesn't mean it could never happen. I don't think the plan is to slap iOS onto a Mac, but create a potentially new OS made for point and click that shares the advantages of both macOS and iOS. Ultimately it will come down to developer support.

Or... you'll just have to move to windows for your specific needs.

 

[maflynn]

Wow, this sucks. But I guess it at least provides a better performance than cross-platform solutions.

Even cross platform products. For instance, if you're running Oracle on a SPARC server and decide to convert over to a X86 server. SPARC is big-endian and x86 is little-endian so that means a conversion process needs to occur, so while software looks to be cross platform, it may not always be due to hardware considerations.

 

[obitow]

Even cross platform products. For instance, if you're running Oracle on a SPARC server and decide to convert over to a X86 server. SPARC is big-endian and x86 is little-endian so that means a conversion process needs to occur, so while software looks to be cross platform, it may not always be due to hardware considerations.

Sometimes I forget how the real world works

 

[lysingur]

Interesting work.
I did x86 cache controller design.
I was at Amdahl in the late 80's doing design in the computer development group.
But I have written papers on cache coherency, audio digital signal processing and unified flow for FPGA to ASIC transition.
My area of specialization was processor architecture, but have spent more time doing custom processors for video encode/decode and compression and not general purpose computing.

But, credentials aside I think you missed my point.

My overall point is that an A11 does not have the equivalent complexity of an Intel desktop processor.
By that I mean the additional peripheral interfaces needed for a balanced system.
Compare an A11 to the newly announced i9.

That's not an A11 with a few tweaks.
Can Apple design a processor to compete? Probably, if they hire enough people.
Does it make sense? Only if the ROI is in the billions of dollars because that is the kind of commitment they are going to need to make. It's not a single processor, they are going to need a family of processors and a processor roadmap.

Right now the logistics and people aren't in line with Apple replacing Intel in 2020.

Except this is much more of an economic argument rather than a technological one that Apple is doing this. And on the economic argument, you're wrong that the ROI won't be in the billions. Apple is playing the long game and the long game is not computing per se but rather lifestyle, digital mobile lifestyle to be exact. By designing graphics card and CPU in-house, they eliminate the kind of bottlenecks and attendant uncertainties of sticking with x86 Intel chips, which allow them to focus their energy on something much bigger than just desktop computers.

There is no other way to provide a seamless user experience between Mac, iPad, iPhone, Apple Watch and Apple TV without having a common chip, programming language and APIs. This is not to mention other products Apple has in the offing. What Apple is doing is simplifying where there should be simplification, i.e. CPU architecture, so as to free up resources which then can be allocated channelled towards foreseeable complexities that need to be dealt. During the PowerPC era, Apple pretty much only had two product lines to manage, desktop and laptop, but now they have five. And the update cycle is shorter. More importantly perhaps, it's not like Intel is vastly superior to ARM in the areas that generate the most revenue for Apple anyway.

 

[LordVic]

Sometimes I forget how the real world works

as I've said before, it's not that you "forget" it's just that the real bulk of computer usage is behind the scenes and not consumer facing.

(the old iceberg analogy). the stuff that runs everything behind the scenes is very VERY tempermental with what it runs on. millions/billions get invested constantly to keep the back end of EVERYTHING we do running efficiently, quickly, and unaware to the user.

it's a mixed bag having the real power of the modern world a black box to a very large chunk of consumers. But at the same time, making it that seemless and easy for them has allowed technology to explode. How many people would use modern devices if they had to know the ins and outs of IT? probably very few. we'd still be in 90's tech if there wasn't such an effort to make the end user experience as easy as it is.

I don't blame consumer level stuff and users from not knowing. You want stuff to just work. I know when i'm home and not worrying about work, so do I.

That's why this thread is amusing. The positivity for this move isn't bad. But it's very consumer focused and "Misses the forest for the trees". As I believe a large chunk of end users themselves would never know or care what CPU powers their devices, as long as what they do works. But for the rest of us who have to actually MAKE those things work, it would be an immediate barrier to our ability to help and serve everyone else.

Here's an example: you know all those phone users who get their corporate email on their phones? they go into their email app. put in their email address, and password and magically, it's done. their online. BUt whats powering that behind the scenes is a combination of:
High availability networking infrastructure of combinations of Internet pipes, switches, balancers
Server Farm: running Active Directory management (either windows or LDAP) user account control and system
Web Servers for any web based front end. Encrpytion. etc.
OWA servers.
Filestores for all those files and emails


the list can go on. this is JUST to run an email provider. nevermind the hudnreds/thousands of other online stuff.

 

[DevNull0]

Can you imagine if Apple were still using PPCs...?

You mean if Apple were using an obscure semi-proprietary CPU that can't keep up with the less expensive main-stream competition and also prevents compatibility with thousands of small niche programs? We don't have to imagine, Apple was there.

Under Steve Jobs first reign, he used the 6502 in Apples and then 68000 series in Macs. Things were fairly open and standardized and Apple did very well. Under Scully, Apple used PPC and locked everything down. They were weeks away from bankruptcy when MSFT stepped in with $150 million to save Apple so MSFT would look better in their own antitrust proceedings.

Part of that was bringing back Steve who switched Apple to Intel (back to a mainstream CPU), and opened up access the HDD, switched to industry standard ram stics, replaced proprietary ADB with open USB, etc. And Mac thrived again.

Everything about Timmy's Apple is a return to the bad old days of Scully. Scully even made boatloads of money for Apple, much like Timmy, and was for a while the highest paid CEO in silicon valley. Then Apple hit the wall. Timmy is determined to repeat all of Scully's mistakes and switching to a proprietary Apple CPU is a switch back to those PPC days.

 

[lysingur]

iOS is a platform from Apple. Android is a platform from Google.

Both platforms consist of hardware, software, and services.

Neither company manufactures hardware (Apple uses FoxConn, Google uses LG and others.)

Apple does not license its' OS but Google does.

In 2007 Apple had a multi-year head start as the only competitive entrant in a category that they essentially created -- the modern mobile OS.

Today it's fighting for the scraps from that table. Google dominates the segment with most of the sales and most of the users.

Apple squandered a multi-year lead despite superior technology. Because of hubris and bad strategy.

They did the same with MacOS in the 80's and relegated themselves to single-digit penetration forever.

Now they are going to stick their fingers in the eyes of the few remaining developers and the few remaining customers that they have?? Ridiculous.

Most people don't drive BMW or Mecedes Benz but they seem to doing all right. Britain got a head start in the industrial revolution but was later eclipsed by Germany but they seem to be doing all right too. ARM architecture makes both financial and technological sense. Just wait and see.
[doublepost=1522846015][/doublepost]

You mean if Apple were using an obscure semi-proprietary CPU that can't keep up with the less expensive main-stream competition and also prevents compatibility with thousands of small niche programs? We don't have to imagine, Apple was there.

Under Steve Jobs first reign, he used the 6502 in Apples and then 68000 series in Macs. Things were fairly open and standardized and Apple did very well. Under Scully, Apple used PPC and locked everything down. They were weeks away from bankruptcy when MSFT stepped in with $150 million to save Apple so MSFT would look better in their own antitrust proceedings.

Part of that was bringing back Steve who switched Apple to Intel (back to a mainstream CPU), and opened up access the HDD, switched to industry standard ram stics, replaced proprietary ADB with open USB, etc. And Mac thrived again.

Everything about Timmy's Apple is a return to the bad old days of Scully. Scully even made boatloads of money for Apple, much like Timmy, and was for a while the highest paid CEO in silicon valley. Then Apple hit the wall. Timmy is determined to repeat all of Scully's mistakes and switching to a proprietary Apple CPU is a switch back to those PPC days.

Mac started thriving long before they switched to Intel. Switching to USB was actually the key. Your revisionist account of history is awful, to say the least.

Let's also not forget that Apple owes much of its meteroric success to the iPhone, which has very little to do with what kind of CPU was and is in the Macs.

 

[obitow]

You mean if Apple were using an obscure semi-proprietary CPU that can't keep up with the less expensive main-stream competition and also prevents compatibility with thousands of small niche programs? We don't have to imagine, Apple was there.

Under Steve Jobs first reign, he used the 6502 in Apples and then 68000 series in Macs. Things were fairly open and standardized and Apple did very well. Under Scully, Apple used PPC and locked everything down. They were weeks away from bankruptcy when MSFT stepped in with $150 million to save Apple so MSFT would look better in their own antitrust proceedings.

Part of that was bringing back Steve who switched Apple to Intel (back to a mainstream CPU), and opened up access the HDD, switched to industry standard ram stics, replaced proprietary ADB with open USB, etc. And Mac thrived again.

Everything about Timmy's Apple is a return to the bad old days of Scully. Scully even made boatloads of money for Apple, much like Timmy, and was for a while the highest paid CEO in silicon valley. Then Apple hit the wall. Timmy is determined to repeat all of Scully's mistakes and switching to a proprietary Apple CPU is a switch back to those PPC days.

I believe the situation is quite different now. The Mac is still a significant part of revenue but it's not the biggest anymore. Apple could in theory afford to lose it.

Plus, ARM is not an obscure architecture. Arguably, most computers these days run on it.

 

[cram501]

Completely agree. As technology moves forward though, people will either need to adapt to new tools for the job or stick with the old way of doing things. I'd imagine most companies will want their people moving forward, applying new tools and tech to their business. Saying there is only one way to do things is a quick way to get left behind, I see it first hand every day. iOS is already the best and most profitable platform for developers. Extending this to the Mac is a logical thing to do. Apple will lose some customers and developers along the way, but the people who adapt will far outweigh those who don't.

Thats where we differ. There is nothing to adapt to... There is no "old" and "new". There is no "moving forward". The mac is just a tool like Windows boxes... Linux boxes... or my refrigerator. This isn't a quantum shift in how computing is done. This is way for Apple to make more money and they will lose customers. The question is how many and how many more chrome book type devices will they sell?

Talking about "old", "moving forward", "adapting", etc... is just a smoke screen to validate Apples decision to move architectures. Shifting architectures isn't really about new technology. It's not about a paradigm shift in how to do business. It is all about the money.

 

[cmaier]

best news ever

apple should do it all in house , looks like they will too

i recall the days of motorola's crass incompetence with the g4 - never again

Wouldn’t have been a problem if Steve didn’t torpedo Exponential
[doublepost=1522848578][/doublepost]

You mean if Apple were using an obscure semi-proprietary CPU that can't keep up with the less expensive main-stream competition and also prevents compatibility with thousands of small niche programs? We don't have to imagine, Apple was there.

Under Steve Jobs first reign, he used the 6502 in Apples and then 68000 series in Macs. Things were fairly open and standardized and Apple did very well. Under Scully, Apple used PPC and locked everything down. They were weeks away from bankruptcy when MSFT stepped in with $150 million to save Apple so MSFT would look better in their own antitrust proceedings.

Part of that was bringing back Steve who switched Apple to Intel (back to a mainstream CPU), and opened up access the HDD, switched to industry standard ram stics, replaced proprietary ADB with open USB, etc. And Mac thrived again.

Everything about Timmy's Apple is a return to the bad old days of Scully. Scully even made boatloads of money for Apple, much like Timmy, and was for a while the highest paid CEO in silicon valley. Then Apple hit the wall. Timmy is determined to repeat all of Scully's mistakes and switching to a proprietary Apple CPU is a switch back to those PPC days.

Not saying I disagree with your overall point, but are you asserting that somehow powerppc was more proprietary and obscure than 68k? Cuz that’d be silly.

 

[Keirasplace]

Thats where we differ. There is nothing to adapt to... There is no "old" and "new". There is no "moving forward". The mac is just a tool like Windows boxes... Linux boxes... or my refrigerator. This isn't a quantum shift in how computing is done. This is way for Apple to make more money and they will lose customers. The question is how many and how many more chrome book type devices will they sell?

Talking about "old", "moving forward", "adapting", etc... is just a smoke screen to validate Apples decision to move architectures. Shifting architectures isn't really about new technology. It's not about a paradigm shift in how to do business. It is all about the money.

You don't make money long term if people hate your product, so I'm just hearing blah blah blah blah from you.

Apple is not a monopoly and despite the whole walled garden meme its not that hard to get out if you really want to.
If they're making money, it's people they made the right decision on the product / service side as a whole.
Being entrenched on how to do anything, or a particular niche, is a recipe for disaster.

Apple's focus is user experience across its whole product range while insuring each representative product offers a good one (less variance).