Apple Silicon: The Complete Guide

[Tech198]

I took at as "RISC (Reduced Instruction Set Computer). " says it all.

Less, doesn't always mean better.

VMWare Fusion? Yes. That will be an issue.

I suspect the solution will be to 1) buy a small PC to run those apps or 2) there will be some sort of combination of Remote Desktop + a cloud based Windows PC or VM, using streaming technology to minimize lag.

None of that sounds convenient...

ARM only works on iOS well because no developer was given a chance to have all these apps available initially. So, how could we get upset for something that developers couldn't even do ? However "Apple is all over the place"

First they do ARM to run on Mac by 2020, then they do the same with apps. Universal apps on a different platform..

Ideally, I reckon this transition to ARM on Mac will just "help" Apple make that universal cross iOS app development easier to deal with. They really don't care about users by this stage, only developers.

 

[MacBH928]

Isn't this moving backwards? Computer will be able to do "less" ? I don't know of any ARM based computing device that can do more than an x86 device.

I know this might make since for stuff like MacBook Air where users probably only use the browser and microsoft office, but isn't that the void iPad should be covering?

Doesn't this mean all Mac software has to be recoded and all the software we own and use must be upgraded heavily? It doesn't make sense to have iOS Apps, ARM MacOS apps, and x85 MacOS apps. I don't think developers will go that far.

Also, this doesn't make sense with Apple launch the mega powered Mac Pro.

 

[Naaaaak]

Devs will have to dual-compile apps for x86 and ARM. Apple will probably do something stupid, like make it so ObjC code stops compiling for ARM, just to force more devs into Swift.

 

[moooooooo]

That might be fine with desktop Macs, but the thermals on notebooks are just awful, and the fan noise is so loud...

an AMD Ryzen 3000 series in an MBP would be cool in more ways than one. That and the reduced battery drain these things have ? Sign me up!!

 

[CarlJ]

Even Windows for ARM is garbage.

You don't really need the "for ARM" in that sentence.

 

[pipis2010]

When Apple switched to Intel, there was a massive increase in software from mainstream developers as they were comfortable with Intel. I fear a change to Arm will will cause the opposite to happen and we will loose a lot of good developers. I know in theory this should not happen due to platform development languages, but I can see it happening.

With the power and influence that Apple has in the market? No way for this to happen - granted, the transition (if that happens for ALL Macs) will be bumpy and problematic, maybe at the beginning, but in the end, everything will work out fine. I think a lot of people have lost faith in Apple lately, and with good reason, but I do believe (call me naive), that such a transition will be smooth at the very end.

At least we know that Microsoft is also thinking about Arm, with their Surface X, which is a new product, with the expected initial problems, like all new products, but they will eventually iron out everything - how much time that will take, nobody knows for sure, but they will be ironed out in the end...

 

[vir2l2k]

intel i9 is the best things about macs right now as both their ram speed and gpus suck (still better than arm). give the neglect of the mac it wouldn‘t be a surprise if apple killed the last good thing about it.

 

[crsh1976]

Don't be fooled by this business-driven push to find a way to sell you more non-upgrableable devices every other year so that you don't cling to your computer for 5+ years.

Just take a cold, hard look at the mess that Windows on ARM is with those new fabled notebooks with LTE and all-day battery autonomy : the software sucks, the performance sucks, there's little to no advantage because it tries to mimic X86.

Apple won't try to pull off the same deal, but then what kind of new setup are we looking at?

iOS on Macs? Pointless, we already have iPads.

OSX outfitted to run on ARM? We'd lose X86 compatibility (bad), have yet-another transition to another architecture (arg not fun), and for what major advantage?

I don't see the benefit, personally.

 

[kis]

Considering what a mess the ARM-based Surface Pro X is, I wouldn‘t hold my breath. Plus kind of pointless anyway.

 

[dazzer21-2]

I don't know about this so ready to be corrected, but could it be that Microsoft may refuse to licence Windows to be allowed to run on Apple arm chips? Is there some sort of legal arrangement between Microsoft and Intel, as well as Apple and Intel, that their OSs are licenced to run on those chips (or vice versa)? Just wondering whether Microsoft could turn to Apple to say "we're not going to sign up to have to re-compile Windows to have our OS run on your machines just to sell a few extra copies". Apple users could lose out on Windows compatibility completely. Could that be so?

 

[Frantisekj]

It is mainly about software. If Apple will have functional a somehow adopted SW strategy then they can easily replace lower end Intel processors, Maybe middle as well. But there are some characteristic where Intel processors are still much faster a their subsystems as well. But in some A13 excels on other side.
Here is interesting review.

 

[FelixDerKater]

Intel isn't an enemy anymore.

 

[Tiger8]

This idea is as good as Apple maps

Apple needs to leave it to the experts sometimes and focus on their work. they can't do everything

 

[e1me5]

One thing is for sure. It will cost an ARM and a leg.

 

[dantroline]

I have no doubt an arm-based Mac will allow Apple to provide a better experience overall, but I have two concerns: The first is running Windows/Parallels, how will that work, if at all? And second, will this mean that Apple will move to a controlled-app ecosystem like iOS?

That is the right question. Apple won't do this for our benefit, but to make more money.

 

[0837990]

The day that the mac looses the ability to run all sorts of Linux and Unix software is the day that I'd be forced to move to a Windows machine. The transition away from Mac's already seems to be happening. In our offices more and more people choose ThinkPads when they get new computers, and less and less people choose mac's. Macs are still quirky in a corporate environment. Just the way the default Wifi options are configured is completely messed up, and makes wifi roaming a horrible experience. And to change that one needs to resort to cmdline airport hacks. Ugh.

 

[rikscha]

The entire article doesn't mention 'Swift' at all which is really surprising. It is not about 'will they make the transition' but when. They are putting all the little bits and pieces into place to make this transition happening and have been planning it for years. They already have all software vendors programme their software in Swift allowing them to release their software on all platforms at the same time. When the time is right, they just turn on the switch for this transition.

 

[0837990]

The entire article doesn't mention 'Swift' at all which is really surprising. It is not about 'will they make the transition' but when. They are putting all the little bits and pieces into place to make this transition happening and have been planning it for years. They already have all software vendors programme their software in Swift allowing them to release their software on all platforms at the same time. When the time is right, they just turn on the switch for this transition.

Apple can flick the switch, yes. But it's gonna be interesting to see how many customers they will lose on doing so. Most Mac users aren't Swift developers, you know. A lot of Mac users are power users that work in dev environments that rely on Windows and Linux subsystems to work flawlessly. And the rest are creative professionals, who rely on the software they use far more than the platform they use.

The switch better be seriously smooth, or I'm afraid the Mac will go down in the history books. Which ironically might just be what Tim Apple wants (The future of computing is an iPad).

 

[jimbobb24]

Power chips turned out to a big disaster for Apple as they fell behind. What if Apple falls behind? Keeping parity at a minimum with Intel based PCs is easy when they have Intel chips. I prefer that way to breaking off and trying to stay afloat.

 

[0837990]

Power chips turned out to a big disaster for Apple as they fell behind. What if Apple falls behind? Keeping parity at a minimum with Intel based PCs is easy when they have Intel chips. I prefer that way to breaking off and trying to stay afloat.

Indeed. And also, Intel and AMD will always fight each other and leapfrog each other. Even if Apple stays with Intel exclusively, AMD's effort will still force Intel to innovate and improve sooner or later.

These days, there is very little incentive for Apple's own chip designers to keep pushing the performance and efficiency, as the competitors are already way behind... Which I hope doesn't make the chip designers too comfortable and bored (stagnant).

 

[BigBoy2018]

Once again a reference to the inherently flawed Geekbench tests. That 'test' runs for a couple of minutes. An ARM chip is not going to be able to sustain that performance output for any extended processes.

I suppose I'm coming at it from a video editors perspective, so I'm an outlier as far as use goes, but when it comes to heavy duty tasks, Geekbench results are not a good measure of the real performance you're going to get.

 

[maflynn]

Power chips turned out to a big disaster for Apple as they fell behind. What if Apple falls behind? Keeping parity at a minimum with Intel based PCs is easy when they have Intel chips. I prefer that way to breaking off and trying to stay afloat.

The issue there, is they relied on Motorola and IBM, both who promised apple a number of things, but then shifting priorities altered their ability to produce what they formally promised. Now with ARM, Apple is in control. I'm not advocating that Apple should shift, just pointing out, its not a clear cut comparison.

 

[4jasontv]

They can't, Intel owns x86, and they have only licensed it out to AMD. They show no interest in licensing it out further, and the license to AMD becomes void if someone buys AMD as well.

I am probably wrong but I thought IBM still holds one as well, even if they don't make anything. They have successfully used that license in the past to manufacture x86 for other companies, and I have never heard that they were bound by the same no-selling-the-x86-license clause.

 

[0837990]

Once again a reference to the inherently flawed Geekbench tests. That 'test' runs for a couple of minutes. An ARM chip is not going to be able to sustain that performance output for any extended processes.

I suppose I'm coming at it from a video editors perspective, so I'm an outlier as far as use goes, but when it comes to heavy duty tasks, Geekbench results are not a good measure of the real performance you're going to get.

I inherently agree with your statements, but please also realise that ARM chips can be actively cooled as well, and when they are, they are able to sustain the performance.

But yes, geekbench scores and synthetic benchmarks are useless for measuring real world performance, stability, ability to mult-task, and so on and so forth. Geekbench is for people that doesn't know better.
[automerge]1573044325[/automerge]

The issue there, is they relied on Motorola and IBM, both who promised apple a number of things, but then shifting priorities altered their ability to produce what they formally promised. Now with ARM, Apple is in control. I'm not advocating that Apple should shift, just pointing out, its not a clear cut comparison.

Apple isn't in control over ARM what-so-ever. Whatever gave you that idea?
Apple is relying on ARM designs and licenses. If ARM stops licensing or stops developing, this will directly affect Apple. Apple merely designs its chips based on ARM's technologies. Apple hasn't invented anything of the ARM technology stack. They simply bought the rights to use what ARM already made. Apple just patched the ARM parts they wanted together, and outsourced the manufacturing to TSMC.

So in that sense, Apple is once again relying on two technology providers. ARM for the core technology and TSMC for manufacturing.

 

[matt3526]

Apple can flick the switch, yes. But it's gonna be interesting to see how many customers they will lose on doing so. Most Mac users aren't Swift developers, you know. A lot of Mac users are power users that work in dev environments that rely on Windows and Linux subsystems to work flawlessly. And the rest are creative professionals, who rely on the software they use far more than the platform they use.

The switch better be seriously smooth, or I'm afraid the Mac will go down in the history books. Which ironically might just be what Tim Apple wants (The future of computing is an iPad).

I 100% agree. I love the Apple ecosystem and everything just works but there is no getting away from the fact that not everyone develops apps for mac, and in a lot of cases the market leader only supports windows (Solidworks, Ansys etc). Even gaming (which I do casually) requires windows. As such there are instances where I have no option but to use bootcamp. I love my mac, but the minute I can no longer run Windows on it is the minute I no longer use macs. I really hope Apple keeps windows support; I just don't see large companies suddenly developing arm versions of their apps to support macs when they don't even do it now for intel macs.

Even if there is an arm version of windows, I seriously doubt it will be good or widely developed for.