Apple Says It Has No Plans for Solely ARM-Based or Touchscreen Macs

[Jsameds]

Of course those words were mentioned for using a stylus on a mobile/cell Phone.
That comment doesn't apply for Tablets, Laptops etc.

What is it with so many people who can't comprehend a basic concept.

I know, right? I had a guy over at Engadget saying Apple were contradicting themselves when they said they wouldn't use a touchscreen on a Mac but they had put a Touch Bar on the MBP.

How some people can't understand how utterly different both of those things are I have no idea..


Back to the original point though, let's not forget that stylus' were used back in the day to actually operate the device, hence the whole "if you see a stylus" quote. Apple changed this by shifting this over to using your fingers.

10 years later and all tablets use fingers as their main source of input and stylus' are secondary and almost purely used for artistic input, so again a totally different and incomparable scenario.

 

[MacsRuleOthersDrool]

Just replace the touchbar and keyboard with an iPad.
Done.

I'm with you on this. In fact, I think the only thing that is keeping them from doing that on the current MBP design is cost. And to some extent, battery life.

Heck, the current TrackPad is the size of an iPhone, anyway. And I would be surprised if they haven't done an internal mock-up.

Add Apple Pencil support, and you truly have a game-changer.

But then, does that mean the Magic Trackpad becomes the same type of device? How much would THAT have to cost? And what happens to the TouchBar? Does it still "work" at half the physical length, where you'd have to accept some horizontal scrolling all the time? Duet, the premier "Use your iPad as a second display/digitizer" App, already offers "virtual TouchBar" emulation as long as the Mac is running Sierra. But, even an iPad mini is still bigger than the biggest TrackPad.
[doublepost=1491469213][/doublepost]

Without reading through hundreds of posts, has anyone thought of integrating an iPhone or iPad as a touchscreen device to control a Mac, as a potentially much more sophisticated version of the touchbar?

Many iOS Apps exist for precisely that purpose. Most are essentially "second display" products, with limited "mouse emulation". Most are designed to work over WiFi, which is certainly convenient; but has some performance limitations.

However, the most ambitious is a product called "Duet". It was designed by a couple of ex-Apple engineers, and exists as a two-tiered product. Both connect only over USB/Lightning (no WiFi), citing performance as the reason. However, for your acceptance of the use of a cable between your iPad/iPhone and your Mac/Windows machine, you get a "non-laggy" experience, that lives up to the promise of being "genuinely useful".

"Duet" costs $20, and offers basic second-display/touch interface support for macOS and Windows. It even offers "Virtual TouchBar" emulation for Sierra. It works with all Macs running 10.9 and up, all Windows machines running Windows 8 and up, and ALL iPads and iPhones running iOS 7 and up.

https://www.duetdisplay.com

"Duet Pro" is a subscription model, $20 per year, and adds Apple Pencil (with pressure support), and possibly more. It runs on the same desktop OSes, but obviously requires an iPad Pro with Apple Pencil. That product is CLEARLY aimed squarely at the "Turn your iPad into a Digitizer/Drawing Tablet" market.

https://www.duetdisplay.com/pro/

My feeling is that Apple will eventually buy Duet, and integrate it into macOS (and lose the Windows baggage, like they did with eMagic's Logic). But even if they don't, $20, or $20/yr (helps fund ongoing development, which seems reasonable for what has got to be a very tightly-coded product, and ensures continued OS and iOS support), seems pretty reasonable for a product that looks like it delivers on its promises.

Full Disclosure: I haven't used either product; but they look REALLY well-done, and at $20, are firmly in the "Give it a try" price-point.
[doublepost=1491470349][/doublepost]

Whereas the MacBook Pro I bought a few years back is still usable today (after I upgraded it with a new fast SSD). And my iPhone 7 benchmarks faster than that MacBook Pro on lots of my code.

That last comment is quite interesting.

Please elaborate. What kind of code?

 

[gnasher729]

You got a source on that?

The 3.5" iPhone was _huge_ at the time. That was 2007, the time when phones got smaller and smaller and smaller. And I remember the first iPhone 5 that I saw was _huge_.

 

[MacsRuleOthersDrool]

Standard procedure is to deny otherwise any hint of this leaking out would devastate sales and stocks.
They will say something clever like: we reached a wall because of moore's law or for security reason to protect your privacy.
They denied moving to intel for years from PowerPC and later they had a working intel version since 10.0.0

Actually, the story of the mythical "StarTrek" project is quite different. It started out as a TOTALLY non-sanctioned Project.

 

[gnasher729]

Apple's own history has shown they don't care about cannibalizing their own products.

There is a saying that every business in the world should remember: "If you don't cannibalise your own products, someone else will".

 

[niun]

I'd absolutely love to able to draw on my Mac's screen, with all of the powerful apps and functions we don't get on an iPad. I'd ditch my Wacom and simplify my workflow. But they act like having the OPTION of touchscreen is the same as HAVING to use it. Its quite delusional.

Aye. It was that delusional backward thinking that pushed me over to Microsoft and Surface.

 

[MacsRuleOthersDrool]

Apple is the only computer manufacturer who doesn't have any touchscreens. Not even as a high-end option. Let that sink in.

They'll have to suck it up soon. As will all the trolls in this forum acting like touch is a terrible idea just because you don't need it. Are you aware that you don't have to buy the touch-models? And that you don't have to touch the screen? And that the world does not revolve around you?

After seeing Phil's additional comments, I am now EXTREMELY close to leaving Macs and getting a touch Windows machine, and switching from Logic Pro to Cubase instead, so that I can finally work like this again:

I had a Raven MTi2 (see video above) and the touch in music production was a ****ing massive liberation and a huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge productivity and workflow booster which made music production into an amazingly fast, intuitive and joyful experience, but I didn't like its low screen resolution so I sold it and kept waiting for a touchscreen iMac. And yes, touch in music production is so incredible that I'd even survive a far worse OS (Windows) just to have it!

But apparently Apple is content with remaining left behind the rest of the world, with outdated hardware and no modern features. I guess it has something to do with their main desktop OS being far behind the modern times and not ready for touch (unlike Windows), so they "can't" just slap a touchscreen on it, and now they're trying to defend their negligence of their desktop platform.

Phil Schiller is an idiot.

The market is demanding touch more and more. Musicians benefit massively from it and drawing artists need it. And others are finding the joys in it. More and more apps and games are geared towards our most natural input method: Touching something. And kids love and expect touch everywhere (they grew up on touch-devices).

So yes it is inevitable. I just can't believe how obtuse and thick Phil Schiller is. He's hopefully just saying this because he's been desperately backed into a corner and is trying to defend Apple's negligence as the only computer manufacturer lacking touchscreens in 2017.

Apple clearly understands the advantages of Touch to markets such as Multitrack Recording (where Macs continue to have market dominance). Hence the Logic Remote App. Yes, I know it's not quite the same thing; but it does show they "get it".

But their vision is to use iPads for this purpose, rather than screwing up the OS for 10% of their user-base. And your comment about "just slap a touchscreen on it" is EXACTLY what Windows has done, and it shows.

Apple has more respect for their users than to put them through the Windows 8/8.1/10 "Interface-Formerly-Known-As-Metro" clusterf*k, which even required TWO browsers, some-applications-work-here-some-there software catalogs, dozens of questionable UX compromises, not the least of which is "Windows that only really has one Window".

I have to work with Windows Servers at work that have adopted the "Modern UI" (as I think they are calling it these days), and it has worked-out so "spectacularly" that MS is now on the verge of ANOTHER UI Makeover (so-called "Project NEON"), the FOURTH UI paradigm-shift in as many OS versions, and touts as its major "innovations" the use of Blur and Transparency (first used in OS X 10.1, IIRC). Yay, Innovation!

https://mspoweruser.com/project-neon-windows-10-first-look/

That's not an OS UI Roadmap; it's flailing around, hoping they stumble-upon something that is just above "not awful". If you really think that's a superior plan, then more power to you...

 

[Ruggy]

What if there were two identical MacBooks, one with touchscreen and one without, and the touchscreen version cost +$200. Would you buy that version just for the "nice to have" option? What's the price point where it's worth it? Just curious.

Personally, I think it'd be easier for them to rework iOS on the iPad Pro into a suitable hybrid than it would be to rework OSX into a suitable hybrid.

It's a fair point and I imagine there are a number of people that would go with it, but I wouldn't be one.
If you have a laptop with a touch screen- I do- you'll find that when you are sitting comfortably for the keyboard the screen is too far away.It's also the wrong angle so you have to point or use your thumb and your hand gets in the way so you can't see the screen. Sometimes, you end up pushing too hard and end up changing the angle of the screen but most of the time you just forget about it. It seems a better idea than it actually is in practice.
Then you've got technical questions. Finding a touchscreen that gives really good colour and resolution with no bleed is extremely difficult- at least in bigger sizes. They are thicker than a normal screen too, heavier and take more power. Plus, they quickly get covered in smudges.
Frankly, I find the large touch pad on the new Macbook pro excellent and now they have force touch too, an extra hard push gives you most of the functions of the Rt click (and that's usually what you have to go to the touch screen for).That with the touch bar are way better than anything a touch screen can do in my opinion and I'm glad they are sticking to their guns.

 

[MacsRuleOthersDrool]

Apple is not much of a player in enterprise so this is insignificant to Apple's customer base.

Tell that to companies like IBM, who are on quite a tear, deploying Macs in their corporate workspaces.
[doublepost=1491473080][/doublepost]

My gut says that the touchbar will make it's next appearance on a brand new keyboard or maybe the implementation of an iPad (ARM that way) becoming that device for our macs.

Just bought the iPad Pro big boy haven't tried it out yet but have had a iPad Air for a while -- I am one of those people that do NOT like to type on an iPad but -- if the iPad was able to convert to a touchscreen virtual keyboard that integrates into Mac -- now your talking..

Done. Designed by a couple of ex-Apple engineers:

https://www.duetdisplay.com

..and even with Pencil Support:

https://www.duetdisplay.com/pro/
[doublepost=1491473245][/doublepost]

If the market demands it then there will be a touch mac. Phil also said that a screen should not be over 4" on a phone.
[doublepost=1491412488][/doublepost]
This is very true, thats why I dont use it a lot, just here and there when its convenient.

And so you want to upend DECADES of UI design for "just here and there" use?

Go get a Windows machine.
[doublepost=1491473387][/doublepost]

Those were the fiddly little matchstick styluses on pre-iPhone smartphones that you needed because the icons were tiny and the resistive touch screens were rubbish. Today, we're talking about the sort of high-quality styluses and active digitisers made by Wacom or, of course, the Apple Pencil.



Can't Apple "Think Different" and realise that that is not the use-case for a touchscreen on an iMac? Have they seen the MS Surface Studio? (OK that hardware is expensive and outdated even by Apple standards, but the concept is sound...)

And Apple tried it back in 2010, and obviously had a different opinion.
[doublepost=1491473831][/doublepost]

In 2003, SJ stood on stage and waxed eloquent about the bright future and infinite possibilities of the G5. Two years later, he announced the switch to Intel. While he was up on stage talking about the G5, Mac OS X was already up and running on x86 white box hardware.

Apple is switching the Mac to ARM period.

Not as an official Project. Otherwise, they wouldn't have taken over a year to do the switchover. OS X on Intel started out as ONE Engineer's pet-project. After he had it sorta working, he pitched it to his boss, who told him to go out and buy a Vaio and get it working on that, then they pitched it to Jobs, and THEN it was "green-lighted".

But it really didn't exist "from the beginning", like many rumors claim.

Actually, I believe uncle Phil when he says that they are going to start using ARMs as "helper" SoCs, like with the TouchBar. But unless Intel backs them into a corner, like IBM did with the PPC, we may never see an ALL-ARM Mac in the foreseeable future.
[doublepost=1491473923][/doublepost]

This is exactly what Surface Studio has brought to the public!

And which Apple tried. And subsequently REJECTED.

Think about it.
[doublepost=1491474030][/doublepost]

Apple always has such narrow vision.

iMacs are not just for pros.

15" laptops are not just for pros.

Apple could easily have 50%+ marketshare for computers if the decision makers were not such closed minded elitists.

Oh, you mean if they abandon their quality standards and start pushing out plastic-shitboxes at zero profit margin that fall apart in a year or two.

No thanks.
[doublepost=1491474152][/doublepost]

The big advantage would be that ARM chips are pick-n-mix: a company with Apples resources can "make their own" system-on-a-chip with exactly the CPU, cache, I/O, GPU configuration they want to match the type of computer they want to make. Many of the problems with Apple's current range exist because they have to wait for Intel to release a chip with just the right CPU power/GPU type configuration (e.g. no Kaby Lake desktop chips with Iris graphics to put in an entry-level iMac).

And I am SURE that they have had EXACTLY those meetings internally.

But so far, the "pressure" of Intel holding them back hasn't been worth the massive development effort.
[doublepost=1491474346][/doublepost]

This too has been my dream since oh, I dunno.... 2000? Wonder how Microsoft got around this patent?

Sad that they got beat to the punch... not a graphic designer on earth who doesn’t long for that new machine from Microsoft. They hit it out of the park in size, design, function. Too bad it’s a PC.

They didn't get around the Patent.

Apple just doesn't want to "legitimize" the Surface Studio by drawing attention to it with a lawsuit. Smart move on their part. Lets them sit back and watch to see if it is a successful product.

Then, it it proves successful, they swoop in and do it right, since they have nearly a seven year start on the concept.
[doublepost=1491474489][/doublepost]

Windows does some things better, one example is split windows. Its easy on windows, just drag but on macOS i have to click and hold on the green button..

Yeah. I just "love" how I have to FIGHT that behavior on our Windows servers at work. Just drag a window CLOSE to a screen-border, and it wants to turn it into a "Split Screen" format.

Yeah. Convenient. NOT!
[doublepost=1491474927][/doublepost]

Let's see, let me list what's keeping me on the Mac:

+ Logic Pro X is a beautiful DAW for music production, with lots of high-quality built-in effects and a great GUI. By contrast, Cubase and Pro Tools are more cluttered.
+ The OS is very nice to work with and I don't have to worry about the registry and antivirus.
+ Apps for the Mac are in general much better designed than Windows equivalents.

But uh......... that's it. That's the whole list.

What Windows offers?

+ Incredibly fast, modern 2017 hardware. Allowing much more instruments and effects.
+ Lower prices.
+ Touchscreens for massive productivity enhancements.
+ Far more software.
+ Upgradeable hardware.

So let's break things down further...

What's making me stay on the Mac?

"Logic Pro X is a beautiful DAW for music production, with lots of high-quality built-in effects and a great GUI. By contrast, Cubase and Pro Tools are more cluttered."

Well... the latest Cubase 9 Pro on Windows is no slouch (and you barely notice windows itself when you're in an app). It has FAR better MIDI handling and can do much more advanced routing. And there are far more audio plugins for Windows. I don't think I own any that are Mac-only but plenty are Windows-only.

"The OS is very nice to work with and I don't have to worry about the registry and antivirus."

This is a big concern. Every Windows machine I see is a mess with CCleaner, antivirus, Malwarebytes and tons of other trash just to keep it running. And if I switch to Windows I would lose out on the Unix features of macOS.

"Apps for the Mac are in general much better designed than Windows equivalents."

The apps are often so ugly and head-spinningly cluttered and unintuitive for Windows that I almost want to puke. There is no cohesive design at all to any Windows apps.

But wait... Cubase 9 Pro is available for Mac, so that's no benefit of Windows per se. I could just buy Cubase 9 Pro for macOS. And then I wouldn't have to deal with all of the hassle of Windows itself. And I could keep the Unix platform, the great apps, the easier OS, not needing constant antivirus and maintenance, etc.

But alright, then what do I do for a touchscreen (massive productivity booster), fast hardware (to handle bigger music projects), and upgradeable hardware?

Well... I guess the answer is to hackintosh a touchscreen PC. But then you run into the other issue: A hackintosh is a mess too, with constant risks that the hardware will stop working after some OS update. And the hardware itself is worth less so the resale value is trash 2 months after you've bought the components and built the damn thing. So you can't keep buying and selling new ones every 2 years by selling the old one to finance most of the cost of the new one.

So alright... What would fix most of this?

A fast, new iMac with a touchscreen! That would allow huge music projects, and would allow you to touch the plugins to control the whole studio quickly and intuitively.

Oh wait, sorry I forgot, Phil Schiller is an idiot.

Hmm, I guess the last remaining option is to wait for the new modular Mac Pro next year, and buy a separate touchscreen for that. It won't be multitouch. It will just emulate a cursor and let me tap anywhere to control (which is what the Slate Raven does). I guess there won't be any official, awesome multitouch iMac for a few more years, due to Phil's obtuse short-sightedness.

PS: I know Apple people are reading this forum. It wouldn't surprise me if Phil is reading to check the reactions. So I just want to take these 5 seconds to utter 4 words to you: You. Are. An. Idiot.

I have one word for you: Duet. It solves ALL your concerns. ALL of them. And you get to keep Logic. Or switch to Cubase for Mac. Or use both.

https://www.duetdisplay.com

Oh, and make sure you check out all the forum posts with people trying to do SERIOUS DAW work on Windows. The term "ASIO" and "latency" gets thrown around a LOT on those forums...
[doublepost=1491475036][/doublepost]

I'm not being snarky here and I'm not aiming this at you personally but so many people here dismiss PCs because they run Windows and Android phones because they don't run iOS. Are all these people saying a PC or Android device can NEVER be better than Apples efforts?.

No.

But so far, they most certainly are NOT.

 

[SteveJobzniak]

They already have gloves out there to detect hand movement to interact with the virtual environment. I'd give it another 10 years, maybe less, when they're perfected.

Hell yeah baby someone say mah name? You got one thing wrong, I was already perfect in the 80s.

 

[theluggage]

And Apple tried it back in 2010, and obviously had a different opinion.

All we know is that the idea got far enough for Apple to produce some technical drawings and file a patent (something that they're doing continually). Doesn't mean it was actually seriously considered. Also, critically, it is for a touchscreen not for a high-quality stylus digitiser - which is the real USP of the Surface range for creative users (& is definitely the feature that MS are pushing in their ads).

Anyway, it doesn't look as if Phil Schiller remembers this patent either if his main argument against touchscreens is the old "gorilla arms" issue - which is true if you just slap a touchscreen on the existing iMac.

 

[maflynn]

Appeal to the masses. Ubiquity doesn't mean it's a good idea.

Appealing to the masses is exactly what apple does. All I've seen in the MPB forum is that apple abandoned the pro market for the consumers because that's where the sales are.

 

[SlCKB0Y]

Otherwise, they wouldn't have taken over a year to do the switchover. OS X on Intel started out as ONE Engineer's pet-project. After he had it sorta working, he pitched it to his boss, who told him to go out and buy a Vaio and get it working on that, then they pitched it to Jobs, and THEN it was "green-lighted".

But it really didn't exist "from the beginning", like many rumors claim.

It's not a rumour, it was confirmed by Jobs on stage at WWDC 2005:

http://appleinsider.com/articles/05/06/06/apple_confirms_switch_to_intel

Mac OS X has been leading a "secret double life" Jobs proclaimed. He said every release of the Mac OS X over the last five years was secretly built for both the PowerPC and Intel processors. “So today for the first time, I can confirm the rumors that every release of Mac OS X has been compiled for both PowerPC and Intel. This has been going on for the last five years” he said.

What's your source which refutes Job's account?

 

[DNichter]

As someone who works with Logic/Ableton, I easily have 40+ tracks of audio (varying from audio recordings to AU/VST instruments), which can take up a good amount of processing. Add on top AU/VST effects like reverbs which take quite a bit more processing, an ARM chip will struggle. ARM is great for mobile devices (phones/tablets).

Also take in mind that applications/drivers/etc will have to be rewritten to accommodate ARM, which is a headache in itself. I for one don't think ARM will be at the same level as an Intel CPU anytime soon.

Yes, but a chip is a chip. I would think that over years of development, Apple and it's team could create a chip that rivals Intel's. I don't see Intel as this untouchable force that will rule computers forever.
[doublepost=1491479721][/doublepost]

But remember, since Apple has an "Architecture-Class" license from ARM (and more ARM experience than almost anyone else on the planet), they could possibly build an "x86-emulator" INTO the ARM itself! Before you scoff, keep in mind that EVERY modern "x86" CPU, EVERY. SINGLE. ONE. Is actually EMULATING x86 behavior. That is NOT what is happening down at the Microcode level in the CPU. Seriously.

So, the idea of an "ARM that can run x86" is not NEARLY as far-fetched as you might think.

And if anyone can do it; it's Apple. And even if they don't get that working right away, they are also the absolute MASTERS of "Fat Binaries", and since macOS is already quite Processor-Agnostic, I would be VERY surprised if Apple doesn't have macOS running NATIVE on ARM right now...

Exactly my thoughts. I can definitely see Apple doing exactly this in the future.

 

[SteveJobzniak]

It's adorable when complete computer novices say "Apple can and WILL put a copy of an x86 CPU inside their ARM CPUs and ditch Intel".

1. They would have to copy every aspect of an Intel CPU. Every single circuit. Several hundred instructions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86_instruction_listings) would have to be copied exactly, and bug-free, to have all of the Intel CPU instructions and extensions so that x86 programs behave as they expect on an Intel CPU, instead of breaking down and crashing due to missing or misimplemented instructions. So yeah Apple "just" has to steal the whole, exact Intel CPU design.

2. "Oh but wait, what's that? There's lawyers involved? You can't just steal someone's designs and copy their whole product for free and call it "Apple CPU ARM awesome lol wink emoji"? Oh? So Intel owns ~25 THOUSAND patents related to their CPU designs!? Oh dear." -- Timmy Cook.

3. So when Apple copies the entire x86 CPU and puts it in their ARM CPU and licenses 25 thousand patents and passes the licensing fees on to you penny pinchers, let me know how your $30,000 MacBook Air feels.

http://www.prime-patent.com/wordpre.../03/Intel_Patent_Portfolio_Company_Report.pdf

 

[NT1440]

No, in my opinion, apple should put a trackpad on the smart keyboard cover, and have ios for the ipad pro support the trackpad in text intensive tasks like wordprocessing and email. That' s all.

Apple has been working on many different paths to take the smart covers down. I don't think that Smart Connector was an after thought

http://www.patentlyapple.com/patent...e-display-solar-panels-built-in-keyboard.html

 

[SirRahikkala]

How difficult it's for people to understand that MacOS can't be used with touch input and Apple ain't changing how the fundamentals of OS is working?

 

[SteveJobzniak]

How difficult it's for people to understand that MacOS can't be used with touch input and Apple ain't changing how the fundamentals of OS is working?

How difficult is it for people to understand that touch is for alternative input use in individual applications for specific purposes such as music mixers (faders) and drawing and design and games, and that Apple doesn't have to change how the fundamentals of macOS itself is working? God some people are really thick and unimaginative. If we only had such regressive people throughout history, we would still be living in mud huts. Thank God for the dreamers and the creators who took us into the 21st century and beyond.

 

[bjet767]

Ok we've been down this ARM debate before and it seems all has been forgotten and a resurrection has happened.

The real issue is marketing in both of Apple's statements.

Microsoft has already proven the customer will hate a dual processor OS, especially one which limits software use on one.

A touch based OS X will hurt iOS and the massive number of iOS devices in use.

Finally I have Dual, for iOS and it works fantastic!

I often use my iPad as a dual screen with 13" MacBook Pro.

Yes I would like touch capable OS X, but I don't count.

 

[simon lefisch]

Yes, but a chip is a chip.

I partially agree with you. If a chip is a chip, they could've gone with AMD, but they didn't due to Intel's strong architecture. That's the main reason why they switched from IBM's PowerPC chip (besides wanting to run Windows on a Mac).

 

[DNichter]

Yeah, touchscreens for macbooks are stupid... wait what? Apple already made something like this?

https://www.apple.com/v/ipad/home/aa/images/home/ipadpro_large.jpg

Quite funny that touch should work on iPads with keyboard, but should be horrible with a macbook.

Just create a macbook with a detachable screen which functions as an ipad.
-> Screen attached = macbook with macos and a touchscreen
-> Screen detached = iPad with iOS

Kind of how microsoft went with the surface book, but much better with two different OS

Exactly. If anyone wants a 2 in 1 device optimized for touch, this is the best solution. No need for a touch MacBook, just continue to push new software improvements to iOS to make it more desktop-like.
[doublepost=1491484015][/doublepost]

I partially agree with you. If a chip is a chip, they could've gone with AMD, but they didn't due to Intel's strong architecture. That's the main reason why they switched from IBM's PowerPC chip (besides wanting to run Windows on a Mac).

There is no denying that Intel is in a prime position when it comes to current chip architecture. I just think those that are saying we will NEVER see an ARM based Mac are a little off base. I'd think with the amount of resources Apple is dedicating to ARM chip development, the writing is on the wall. And Apple loves control.

 

[Stella]

YMMV.

How in the world is it "faster"?? I can move my mouse pointer 20 inches across the screen with a 1" pivot of my wrist. If you're touching the screen, you literally have to lift and move your entire arm the full 20 inches. Besides being hugely inconvenient, it takes substantially longer.

 

[theluggage]

It's adorable when complete computer novices say "Apple can and WILL put a copy of an x86 CPU inside their ARM CPUs and ditch Intel".

It would be done via software emulation, or just-in-time code translation.
https://arstechnica.co.uk/information-technology/2016/11/x86-emulation-windows-for-arm-late-2017/

x86 emulators have been around for the ARM since the late 1980s (I remember running Windows 3.1 on my Acorn Archimedes), just as x86 emulators for PPC and 68k were (remember SoftWindows for Mac?)

Apple have twice used emulation technologies to smooth their processor transitions (68k on PPC was a software emulator, and I think Rosetta for PPC on x86 was a just-in-time code translator).

You're right in that a software emulator is never going to have the same performance as a hardware implementation, and may lack some of the cleverest optimisations found in Intel hardware. OTOH, software is changing, and making more use of hardware-independent frameworks for "heavy lifting". Still, ARM only makes sense for heavy-duty Pro work if the key applications run natively. However, emulation will quite happily let you run MS Office or suchlike...

 

[AdonisSMU]

The iPad mini says hi.

 

[69650]

They could just buy AMD and design their Intel-class chips.