Apple Testing ARM Based Mac Prototypes with Large Magic Trackpad?

[Mac Heretic]

I would be really surprised if they let you run iOS applications, because the interface doesn't make sense on a desktop, even less so if you use a large 27" monitor.

Maybe that is what "missing big picture" will come to mean for us.

 

[bumblebritches5]

ARM is tested and true, the iPhone/iPad/Apple TV run on ARM chips even, but that's not what worries me.

ARM-powered laptops already exist on the market, they're called Chromebooks.

While the novelty is cute and all, it's a weird limited device bound to a specific ecosystem (whether it's Google's or Apple's, who cares) that offers no technological benefit other than bounding a consumer to one company's business.

The reason Chromebooks suck s much is because Google has severly locked down it's software, it only has a 16/32GB NAND, and all programs must be HTML/JS and run in the browser...

 

[iSee]

Its a different version of windows because its on a different chipset. Today's applications for OSX would not work on an ARM based Mac because they're not compiled of run on a different CPU. OSX would need to an emulator, much like they did when they went to PPC to Intel.

Microsoft did not create a different windows version, but rather create a windows version to run on ARM. Apple is rumored to create an OSX version that will run on ARM

This is the exact same thing that MS is doing, running a copy of their OS on a different chipset, apps have to written/compiled for that chipset and it produces different binaries.

The difference between the OS Surface RT devices runs and intel-based windows devices is more than the chipset it was compiled for.

It uses an entirely different API, meaning large parts of apps would have to be rewritten to run on it, not just recompiled. Interestingly, it wasn't just the UI API that changed. MS created and entirely new API (well, it was based on some stuff they did before, but they didn't even keep compatibility with that). For Windows development it's not even that common to organize code and components to keep UI-specific, platform-specific, separate from generic code, so it will be a big port in many cases.

And the UI is very different.

So most apps need to be redesigned and reimplemented both internally and externally to move from E.g. Windows 7 to run on a Surface RT device.

Apple doesn't have to change the UI or API to switch from Intel CPUs to ARM CPUs for their computers. If not, it will be more like the switch from 32-bit to 64-bit CPUs for most apps: a few changes, a recompile, test. There will most likely be a few old or obscure APIs that Apple will choose not to port and those will cause the most disruption for developers.

 

[apolloa]

While a lot of comments focus on Apple using the ARM in a low cost machine, when was the last time Apple came out with a truly low cost machine that was significantly cheaper than its regular models or competed in the low end market for computers?

The closest to that is the iPhone 5c which hasn't exactly been a huge success nor particularly cheap for that matter.

They haven't produced a cheap iPad to compete with the $200 tablets; despite using their own chips. The Mac Mini, the least expensive Mac, still starts at $599; a price where you can get a PC with keyboard and monitor and still have $150 in your pocket.

Apple doesn't do low end nor produce cheaper models for some markets. If they do go to ARM it is because they can retain the performance they want while controlling more of the supply chain and having more certainty over the roadmap for the their devices. They might lower costs a bit but probably will simply enjoy a larger profit margin.

This...

People on here just don't seem to get that? Imagine this, a potential Apple customer walks into the store, he currently uses Windows XX, he asks the sales guy about the 13" MacBook Air because it's just in his price range.

He asks what programmes it can run, the sales guy states it runs all the apps the iPad can, he asks oh Ok then what about my Windows programmes.. to which the reply is No but it can run similar apps from like the iPad can.

The customer will look at the price again, think you must be joking and walk out the store empty handed, they will now think the MB Air is just an overpriced glorified iPad.

That is the general public thinking. They will see the very high cost of an MB Air and think if it can't do everything my current Windows computer can, what's the point for that much money?

 

[wizard]

PPC was an inferior platform, built by a small company and IBM. Intel is the undisputed market leader in chips.

True about the PPC. Maybe not so true about Intel. Intel is having huge trouble wrapping its head around the custom SoC market and since that is where industry is going Intel has problems. Take a look at Atom and do a rational comparison to other SoC on the market, it looses in many ways against many platforms.

Intel also sells an ~8 watt processor (Y class) that no one appears to be using.

That should tell you something right there. Ask your self why nobody is using this chip. Given a rational review I think you will find that it simply isn't as good as a Intel like to paint the chip.

So that would fit just fine in a device like this.

You are assuming that Apple can afford to be tied to Intel long term. It can't because as I mentioned in another response silicon is where digital engineering is done these days. It is all about putting functionality and IP onto silicon, hopefully a single piece of silicon. That silicon is customized to be a specific product. In Apples case I would expect that an ARM chip would be designed specifically to support laptop usage. Why? You would tailor things like memory performance and cache sizes for better performance for one. You would also include laptop specific I/O such as USB ports, TB ports, additional Video ports and the like.

 

[gnasher729]

If this is true, then I'm doubling down on my $AAPL stock.

That would be not a good reason, because the Mac business is only a small percentage of Apple's total revenue. If there was a separate Apple company selling laptop and desktop computers, maybe.

 

[W2u7Yw4HaD]

Dual cpu's..

I can't believe people haven't proposed the following idea.. Dual CPU design.. Include both an intel and apple arm cpu into the case.. You could do much of your tasks with the apple cpu and then it could switch to intel when and if it needed to.. Much like GPU does today in the macbook pro's..

 

[wizard]

In 1997 Moto had $37B revenue. Intel had $75B revenue that year.

Intel's revenue that year was only $25B.

Numbers don't lie.

Actually the semiconductor business was spun off as Freescale. Freescale actually has some nice products for the embedded world.

 

[bumblebritches5]

Guys, I think you're missing the big picture here. You might not be able to run Windows or existing OS X apps on your Mac anymore, but you'd be able to run iOS apps. Who needs real Office or iWork when you can have Office and iWork for iOS on a MacBook Air!

Apple would have to include CocoaTouch for that though...

 

[apolloa]

I can't believe people haven't proposed the following idea.. Dual CPU design.. Include both an intel and apple arm cpu into the case.. You could do much of your tasks with the apple cpu and then it could switch to intel when and if it needed to.. Much like GPU does today in the macbook pro's..

Because that would mean even lower battery life and higher operating temperatures I would think, plus increase in costs, would you want to pay MORE for an iMac or MacBook Air?

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Drama Queen much. The point is that 95% of people use an air to surf the web and maybe write a document or 2 or do some iPhoto stuff. They would have to keep the i7s as they are still waaaaaay faster than ARM.

WTF do they need a full computer for if that's all they do? They can use an existing iPad. It even has M$ Office now. That doesn't mean it's a good idea to split the prime OSX market into two groups again (like the overlap of PPC and Intel) and cripple software like VMWare and Apple's own Boot Camp into worthless oblivion when that's what sold a lot of Macs that would have otherwise been PC purchases. All that is GONE with Arm. Just plain gone. In its stead, you get 100% iOS on your desktop platform (a nightmare to many, especially if it replaces the desktop OS entirely in the end and Apple finally locks up software to only the App Store like iOS). I don't call that being a drama queen. I call that the logical reality of all Apple's moves up to now if they suddenly shift to ARM. OSX has been getting more iOS'ified as time goes on already.

If they could bring in a $600 Arm machine that is as powerful as a 3 year old macbook pro why not. Doesn't mean they would swap completely to ARM.

It would split the software markets into very undesirable "have to make two versions for everything" (or at least less optimized if not done that way). iOS started out separate so it's already there. But splitting the Mac market again is another matter. I can only see a stock drop there and a lot of PO'ed Mac users if they kill the Mac (as we know it) in the end.

Furthermore, Apple has said for some time now that they don't want a "cheap" Mac experience. WTF are we going to get with $600 notebooks but a cheap experience compared to a full-featured Mac that is 3-4x faster? It's the reason Apple did NOT go with a Netbook. I know because I made my own OSX "Hackintosh" form a Netbook and it was/is slow as hell and therefore pretty unpleasant to use. I want faster not slower in the future.

The real reason Apple wants ARM is control. They make their own ARM CPUs and aren't dependent on Intel to make them for them. Apple loves to control things for you (e.g. iTunes instead of blu-ray, etc.). Having OSX more iOS-like, especially if they disable 3rd party software and make it App Store only would give them Big Brother levels of control over your "Mac" experience.

I like Macs because of the lack of malware and an easy to maintain OS that never gets slower as you add software, etc. Making it dumbed down and slower is a sure way to get me to move to something else again, though.

 

[danielsutton]

Compared to intel or IBM, they are tiny. They are even smaller now than they were then.

PPC was made by the AIM Alliance -- Apple, IBM, and Motorola. So IBM did have a role in making PPC chips.

 

[W2u7Yw4HaD]

Because that would mean even lower battery life and higher operating temperatures I would think, plus increase in costs, would you want to pay MORE for an iMac or MacBook Air?

Yes increase in costs.. But I disagree with more heat and such.. I think if executed correctly, it could make a lot of sense..

 

[Lunfai]

I can't believe people haven't proposed the following idea.. Dual CPU design.. Include both an intel and apple arm cpu into the case.. You could do much of your tasks with the apple cpu and then it could switch to intel when and if it needed to.. Much like GPU does today in the macbook pro's..

I'm not saying it wouldn't work but it would mean that you need some sort of method to move between different architectures. I don't think it works as easily as dual GPU and it will require a lot of work with the OS.

Also, I hate the idea of moving to ARM since program's such as Adobe Creative Cloud won't run anymore.

 

[gnasher729]

But when Apple has chip designers they hired away from AMD working for them ...

Excuse me, but Apple bought PA Semi a few years ago. _That's_ what their expertise comes from. Sure, they are hiring new people who become available, including from AMD, but that's a minor part.

 

[IscariotJ]

This would be an absolute disaster if Apple did this, I appreciate why they would want to do it as it gives them even more control over their platform and everything on it, and, ultimately, even more profit.
But it would also make their platform a joke.

I see only a few places where ARM should be, my mobile phone, my tablet, my Smart TV, and my car.

I do not want a low power low performance CPU in my computer.

I think you need to take a look and see just how capable the ARM platform is. They might be low power, but they haven't been low performance for a long while. Quite a few companies are realising this, and readying ARM-based servers. There'd be no point if the performance wasn't there.

True, an ARM-based "MacBook" wouldn't be for everyone, but it would suffice for quite a lot, and for Apple, it means more people in the ecosystem, and more money ( not mention the savings on components ). To Apple, that's no joking matter.

 

[wizard]

Maybe these machines aren't for you!

I really don't think you need to worry. If these machines are real they will be going after a different market and keep the i86 machines around for a bit.

I came back to Apple after more than a decade of PCs specifically because of the adoption of Intel (x86) CPUs. If they switch architectures again, so will I.

It's cool, I only buy 5x the norm customer in hardware/software from Apple each year and refer in countless more customers consistently.

Which means nothing really. This garbage isn't any different than what was heard from Apple 2 users when the Mac came out. Either a product works for you or it doesn't.

 

[dagamer34]

There is no need to port anything. Any modern Cocoa application which works with a 64-bit Intel CPU will also compile to ARMv8 as the sizes of fundamental data sizes are the same. The only potential problem is assembler code, but practically nobody does that nowadays.



Well, I don't think that a CPU would be a major problem here... The A7 in the iPad is already around 50% performance of the Haswell in the MBA. If they can clock the A7 higher, it would be still delivering acceptable performance for an average consumer. The GPU is a bigger concern. Also, a ARM MBA is likely to be cheaper — its MUCH less expensive for Apple to use an A7 vs. paying Intel for the CPUs...

Doubling clock speed does not double performance. CPU scaling is nowhere near that linear anymore, especially when you factor in gear generated. The reason why Intel makes the best mobile CPUs and is rewarded as such is *because* having low-power high-performance chips is hard.

 

[ChristianVirtual]

It is certainly the case that most users have modest needs. All of this hand twisting about compatibility with the past is only a consideration for a few. However your characterization of the ARM based notebook as being low powered may be a stretch. We really don't know what the ARM chip can do un throttled.

Aren't you jumping the gun here? For one XCode is highly threaded so that core are a positive thing and frankly compiling is one of those so called embarrassing simple parallel problems. As for virtualization we simply don't know if the hardware Apple would use has support for virtualization but if they did there are a number of ARM based Linux distros coming on line. FCP would need a native binary and would likely suffer performance wise even the

In the end you can't categorically say that the performance won't be good enough if you haven't seen the hardware nor the software targeted to the machine.

Absolutely! This would not be a machine to target the users of the Mac Pro. However I suspect that many current Mac users, even a few professionals would be very happy with such a machine from the performance standpoint. Hell we have professionals now running significant businesses on iPads.


I'm almost thinking that Apple will need to market two different brands of hardware. Macs would be i86 and XYZ would be ARM based. That would completely eliminate confusion and keep current Mac users happy. Un least untill they realize that the ARM machines are actually better machines. The ARM machines won't be better immediately of course but I think many people underestimate just how capable Apple is now with CPU design.

While compiling itself might be the easy part; Xcode get a bit slow with the recent iterations. Storyboard and whatever else Apple is checking while I'm coding: it sure could use some more Hz or Cores. But agree: maybe an Power-ARM iMac with 8 chips each a quad-core (=32 cores) provide enough computational power to keep a positive UX on two or three screen.

As for virtualization without Intel as base we would not be able to run Windows or Linux as virtual machines. Sure, some emulator might be possible, but I would not try that. The good thing of virtual environments like VM Fusion is that the binary code is executed native. Of course Apple might not care about that use case and just run over it.

As long Apple will drive a dual-strategy with Intel and ARM for at least 3 to 7 years and allow a smooth transition into an ARM world based on 100% source code compatibility and no significant performance lost I'm fine.

 

[BCWorld]

Been telling people that Apple would make this move for years. Maybe its a rumor, maybe its a fact, who really knows??😕

 

[crsh1976]

The reason Chromebooks suck s much is because Google has severly locked down it's software, it only has a 16/32GB NAND, and all programs must be HTML/JS and run in the browser...

I'm confident Apple would love a Chromebook-like device that binds users to their App Store..

Oh wait, they already exist, the iPhone and the iPad and the Apple TV.

A lightweight laptop with limited processing power and bound to iCloud and the App Store, just the Chromebooks, makes perfect sense here.

Well, perfect sense for Apple, dubious for my personal needs.

 

[wiz329]

I can't believe people haven't proposed the following idea.. Dual CPU design.. Include both an intel and apple arm cpu into the case.. You could do much of your tasks with the apple cpu and then it could switch to intel when and if it needed to.. Much like GPU does today in the macbook pro's..

No.
Just, no.

 

[AstronomyiPhone]

...a source that they describe as reliable...

Can we get a definition here? We see this way too often...

 

[maxdenis]

Not for me

I'm also in the camp that thinks this is a bad idea.

- I have no interested in running iOS on a Mac. I have multiple devices that already do this with the iPhone and the iPad. I don't need another. Slapping a keyboard and large trackpad to run iOS has no appeal to me. If Apple were to switch to ARM, it would be to run MacOS, not iOS.

- The beauty of the Mac is that it is NOT an iOS device. Steve got this. There is absolutely no argument that makes sense to pick one OS over the other or to create a "unified" platform. iOS is perfect for touch, MacOS is perfect for keyboards and mice. Leave it that way so I can actually get stuff done.

- I consume media on my iPad and iPhone but take no joy in doing anything else on those devices. If I want to write a long email or paper, do any graphical work, play sophisticated games, research on the web at length....I'll always do it on my Mac. There's a reason why you see people at Starbucks on their laptops and people on planes using their iPads. I'm willing to bet most Apple employees do the exact same thing....wanna get things done, do it on a Mac.

- I bootcamp all the time. Nuff said.

 

[wizard]

The critical point is it wouldn't run OS X, but likely iOS?
A funny thread on the topic: https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=19105311#post19105311

The best possible option I can see would be an OS/X that can run iOS apps in a window. That would immediately offer up a boat load of apps. The could also do iOS apps full screen but I like the window idea better.

Someone needing Bootcamp would know what to choose, someone having no clue what Bootcamp is wouldn't need it?

Exactly. I'm not sure why people are having such a hard time with this whole concept. I86 is legacy hardware and yes I understand the issue of apps that only run there, but wake up folks the world is changing. Most people don't give a damn about i86 anymore. I devices, Android and Linux have effectively given the world a new perspective on what is a requirement in computing devices these days.

Hell I'm still on an iPhone 4 and frankly it is more powerful than probably 3/4's of the computers I've ever owned. These days you buy hardware to fit your needs and very few have needs that absolutely require i86 and Windows.