My 1st gen iPad is constantly crashing with Safari. Good to know that there are people that are working with that.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Testing ARM Based Mac Prototypes with Large Magic Trackpad?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
My 1st gen iPad is constantly crashing with Safari. Good to know that there are people that are working with that.
I could see a lower end ARM based OS X device (similar to a MacBook Air) if there wasn't a noticeable performance hit, it would be much cheaper than the current MacBook Air (US$899), if it could run older apps in emulation, if new versions of Xcode could make fat binaries, and if it was marketed in a way to clearly state Boot Camp is not an option... unless Apple can make that happen somehow. I would also expect Apple to continue to offer their current Intel based products for a long time.
Same API didn't particularly help Windows NT Alpha and MIPS. The core impediment issue isn't just the API (or simple recompile). The issue is large fraction of users aren't going to want to acquire new apps. Using the same stuff they already have is a bigger issue for most users rather that acquiring a new set of stuff in chicken-and-egg situations. Lack of an emulator to scaffold users is goof that Microsoft seems not to grok at all. ( or doesn't particularly care as long as can nudge Intel into following Microsoft's demands. )
RT had multiple objectives (which didn't help) and 3rd party Win32 apps may have helped a bit but it was not "the problem".
That is huge one. When already have/own a major OS on a architecture. Starting another almost always runs into resistance from the established and existing user base.
Not necessarily. Different tools for different uses. I don't think there is a deep need to completely merge either iOS with OS X as unified OS any more than a deep need to merge the hardware. iOS and OS X share enough to get some cost efficiencies . iOS and OS X devices could over time share other components ( storage flash , Wifi , etc. ) without necessarily having to merge the CPU/GPU into the intersect pool also to get some cost efficiencies .
Frankly while ARM v8 architecture ( that Apple's 7 ) implements is respectable in terms of lower half mainstream app CPU needs, the GPUs bundled with most ARM ( for Apple and much of this ARM SoC discussion they are not just ARM chips. They generally all have bundled GPUs ) are not really competitive with desktop (and top end discrete mobile) GPUs in terms of computational throughput. In terms of FLOPs performance the ARM SoC GPUs are way off what the discrete GPUs can provide. There is also little to no advantage they have over Intel's modern iGPUs.
Punting to some "super duper" GPU design that Apple piles on top of doing "competitive with Intel desktop class CPU" design task makes little sense when Intel/AMD/Nvidia continue to deliver in the current/upcoming Mac class of performance. OS X (Macs) continues to compete with Windows (and general PC hardware).
Certainly if the future Intel (and AMD) offerings blow it than an Apple ARM could be an option. But for what is on the likely roadmap for next 2 years Intel's offering is in different leagues and Macs are not drastically retreating on price. Using ARM only gets Macs at lower performance capabilities at the same or higher price than an Intel/AMD system. That is not particularly likely to help grow Mac market share at all.
The new Mac Pro is illustrative of where the bulk of the Mac line up has to be in 4-6 years. ARM SoC solutions don't solve that problem now. They probably won't in 4-6 years either. No ARM SoC can support 6 TB ports or very few even one (since there are few that have sufficient PCIe v2 lane feeders to keep both GPUs and TB feed. )
Vendors (and users ) who are entirely committed to just x86 cores complain.
It is true about A7. Without the limitation of the small battery, they can crank up the Mz and add a few more cores to handle graphics to make it a desktop class machine.
Unfortunately I have been. I've tested our various Windows ultrabooks this past year (ugh) and even have a Surface Pro 3 on order.
The desktop situation isn't a huge change anyways since I have a "gaming" rig already set up next to my iMac/MB Air that 2+ years old but still more powerful.
Biggest issue will be transitioning out of iPhoto and a few other non-Windows apps. We'll see.
"With six decoders and nine ports to execution units, Cyclone is big. As I mentioned before, it's bigger than anything else that goes in a phone. Apple didn't build a Krait/Silvermont competitor, it built something much closer to Intel's big cores. At the launch of the iPhone 5s, Apple referred to the A7 as being "desktop class" - it turns out that wasn't an exaggeration." - Anand Lal Shimpi (Anandtech)
I think it's possible this is why they made so much of a change with the A7. Either to make an incremental step toward the goal of ARM Macs or to have something ready to be die shrunk and cores/clock numbers increased in case they decided to launch last year. As it is, the architecture for such a chip would not be the A7. It would be the A8, assuming they launch it before next year. They would change the name though. Nobody wants to know their Mac CPU has the same architecture as in their phone (maybe it won't). But we like hearing that our iPhone CPU is desktop class.
Apple could also be doing this to get more professional apps easily portable over to iPads. Nobody has designed any useful apps to take advantage of the A7 yet. I'm sure that makes Apple both proud and angry. This could fit into a larger marketing strategy that seeks to eliminate the Microsoft view of iPads not being able to do professional work.
I think it's possible this is why they made so much of a change with the A7. Either to make an incremental step toward the goal of ARM Macs or to have something ready to be die shrunk and cores/clock numbers increased in case they decided to launch last year. As it is, the architecture for such a chip would not be the A7. It would be the A8, assuming they launch it before next year. They would change the name though. Nobody wants to know their Mac CPU has the same architecture as in their phone (maybe it won't). But we like hearing that our iPhone CPU is desktop class.
Apple could also be doing this to get more professional apps easily portable over to iPads. Nobody has designed any useful apps to take advantage of the A7 yet. I'm sure that makes Apple both proud and angry. This could fit into a larger marketing strategy that seeks to eliminate the Microsoft view of iPads not being able to do professional work.
Last edited:
I'm sure after years of experience they will have figured a way to get this working.
There's no forking in browser-based Javascript!
I think it should be clear right now. Yes, browser-based Javascript is pretty much single-threaded. But, if you're a developer and choose a design that includes a browser-based Javascript component, surely you're considering the hundreds of millions of mobile devices out there? Those devices are generally going to have weaker CPUs than the A7 much less whatever these devices might use.
In my opinion, saying that they are "stuck with intel" is a big exaggeration. All modern desktop/workstation computers are using Intel (and on a smaller scale amd) CPUs. Not because they are stuck with it, but because they are the best for the job. Besides, Intel has so far a very good cooperation with apple.
And I can't keep from saying again: Who's going to convince all these 3rd party s/w houses to switch their Mac s/w to a different platform ? Mac is struggling to keep up with PC in specific s/w areas while they are using intel cpus. If they move away from that, things will get really ugly for apple.
I'd like to see this becoming the return of the MacBook!
They could give it a range of colors like the iPhone 5S too.
It could probably work well as a Chromebook competitor without causing overlap with the MacBook Pro / Air series...es...
They could give it a range of colors like the iPhone 5S too.
It could probably work well as a Chromebook competitor without causing overlap with the MacBook Pro / Air series...es...
And the result of that is that you often get a watered-down mobile version with limited features
Besides, we were talking about ARM as a desktop CPU and an alternative to the current ULV Intel CPUs in the MBA. The mobile devices do not have anything to do with this discussion. If you are coding a website that has to behave well on a mobile device, then you have to take the lowest common denominator, which is quite low. I don't want to have a crappy web experience just because there are some cheap tablets out there.
Only a matter of time. let's face it current Mac users will not bolt and the market is wide open. Windows is seriously slumping. Intel is struggling..
If Apple can may this work and further justify their proprietary chip development and offer cheaper Macs with higher margins, why wouldn't they?
If Apple can may this work and further justify their proprietary chip development and offer cheaper Macs with higher margins, why wouldn't they?
Two screens a keyboard/trackpad screen and a regular screen maybe no moving parts would be great and it could spill resistant.
The growth of PCs is way off. There isn't much evidence that the need is way down. The replacement cycles are also getting longer. Again that isn't a measure of "need" but rather of "buying frequency".
What folks don't "need' to do is buying a legacy PC form factor when didn't really need one in the first place. Where have a limited set of tasks to do a more limited device would suffice a more cost effective device will do. Actually the real need was not matched to the legacy PC.... it was really just the closed kludge to getting the issue solved.
A growing faction of mobile devices are not particularly mobile. A household that needs a 2nd "Person computer" so two people can surf the web at the same time may buy an iPad (or lower cost tablet). It is pretty cost effective having to buy another PC+Screen+windows. It can "float" around the house but doesn't necessarily have to leave. (very similar trend happened with cheaper laptops. )
If the usages are limited relative to the hardware's capabilities there isn't alot of upside to computer being big. ( impart that's how transitions from Mainframes to "Mini computers" (which were still usually refrigerator or bigger sized) to Personal computers ).
iPads are used in some classroom now because they are "good enough" for the software that needs to be run and can be put away when done and have other things to do with the desktop space. Traveling large distances or even connecting to different networks isn't really a big issue.
CPU architecture is huge differentiator in making existing software work well. Inertia is pragmatically a factor. System vendors like Apple buy architecture implementations; not architectures in general. The x86 architecture isn't necessarily better but the current and immediate future implementations are certainly far more suited for the more than just occasionally plugged in computer systems running broad spectrum personal computer workloads on large, bulk local data collections.
Significantly chop down the I/O demands and pragmatically solely run on limited battery and ARM's implementations/instantiations have some more competitive upsides.
iOS transitioned past the "tiny pocket sized display" stage years ago. In fact, the general notion of iPad started before iPhone. That "tiny pocket sized display" was only an initial jump starter mechanism.
The big dual monitor set up is only a smaller subset of the OS X space. There is a substantive fraction on the "lower end" that can overlap iOS. Much of the lower end cannibalization is already there without the form factor overlap.
iOS can pick up additional form factors far more so because the market is large enough to support different subgroups with different products targeted to their needs. If there is a significant fraction of users buying iPad+keyboard then it can very well make sense for Apple to sell the combo as a completed system.
That's far different from the trend line that classic Mac OS form factors are on. As pointed above the growth is stalling so there isn't a new larger group. OS X isn't chasing the iPad slate form factor just because "it's hot".
Are people really fighting about who will be the fastest slow guy?
Arm would make sense for apple. Their only desktop computer is the Mac pro, everything else they offer in the computer range are laptops. If they plan to control their laptops just like their iOS devices, it would make sense I guess.
Even with the iMac they are not competing with high end laptops, you can get significantly more performance for less money. And they don't need to! I guess what apple is trying to do "close" their mac range like the iPhone/iPad. If that happens at all, I kind of doubt it.
Arm would make sense for apple. Their only desktop computer is the Mac pro, everything else they offer in the computer range are laptops. If they plan to control their laptops just like their iOS devices, it would make sense I guess.
Even with the iMac they are not competing with high end laptops, you can get significantly more performance for less money. And they don't need to! I guess what apple is trying to do "close" their mac range like the iPhone/iPad. If that happens at all, I kind of doubt it.
And the result of that is that you often get a watered-down mobile version with limited features
Besides, we were talking about ARM as a desktop CPU and an alternative to the current ULV Intel CPUs in the MBA. The mobile devices do not have anything to do with this discussion. If you are coding a website that has to behave well on a mobile device, then you have to take the lowest common denominator, which is quite low. I don't want to have a crappy web experience just because there are some cheap tablets out there.
Well, there will always be developers making poor decisions.
But there are a lot of ways to build apps and there's nothing forcing anyone to do heavy lifting in browser-based Javascript. I'd think long and hard before I chose a design that forced me to deliver a limited version of my app to the hundreds of millions of people using tablets. For many, the tablet is their primary way of using the internet.
(not to mention: nothing says supporting mobile devices means supporting the lowest common denominator of mobile devices.)
Tablets are relevant here since you're suggesting that browser-based Javascript may be a bottleneck for ARM-based Mac. I, and others are pointing out that, due to existing trends in mobile computing, that's very unlikely to be the case.
No. Because they have 100% desktop market share for cpus.
For convincing s/w makers. Take a look at WP/Android and iOS. How apple convinced developers to write SW for their platform ? Well...because the apple ecosystem is the best for monetizing their product. They will do it again.
----------
My point is that ARM CPU has not been yet to be designed to handle such tasks.
The PS3 used CELL to compute graphics...a dedicated nvidia card has been used for menus and such. CELL was never intended to be a desktop CPU but it was ahead of its time back then. It was difficult to code for that is true but that is mainly IBM/Sony's fault.
Apple knows how to develop things. They know how to attract developers etc.
They are not HP,IBM,Sony or any other of this fail rotten corps. It is time to change and we no longer need to be dependent on the OS/ architecture...that is not what matters anymore.
Am I the only one excited by this? I think cost wise the processor is the most expensive part of the computer, going ARM (comparing price from intel to apples ARM) it could lower the price ~$120.
Besides gaming not much processing power is needed. With Broadwell compatible with DDR4, mac flash based PCi-E memory hitting 900 R/W speeds. Assuming its compatible with all OS X software this would make a great low price 11in/13in air and mac mini. If they lower the price by an extra $100 - $150 (possibly with help of the slimmer no fan design and less material).
This will help keep macs competitive. I think it may be a possible move to keep apples lower performance end stuff competitive with a shift to cheaper computers like Chrome books.
Apple has been testing ARM based processors for a while and the minute the processors can reach there standards, I wouldn't be surprised to see the cost saving move. I mean ARM is 1-2 generations away from sandy bridge, but it will have lower power consumption and be considerably cheaper. For a entry level and low priced mac it wouldn't be so bad.
Besides gaming not much processing power is needed. With Broadwell compatible with DDR4, mac flash based PCi-E memory hitting 900 R/W speeds. Assuming its compatible with all OS X software this would make a great low price 11in/13in air and mac mini. If they lower the price by an extra $100 - $150 (possibly with help of the slimmer no fan design and less material).
This will help keep macs competitive. I think it may be a possible move to keep apples lower performance end stuff competitive with a shift to cheaper computers like Chrome books.
Apple has been testing ARM based processors for a while and the minute the processors can reach there standards, I wouldn't be surprised to see the cost saving move. I mean ARM is 1-2 generations away from sandy bridge, but it will have lower power consumption and be considerably cheaper. For a entry level and low priced mac it wouldn't be so bad.
As an outsider looking in (in terms of having no knowledge or experience in processors or software development. I've owned macs and been an enthusiast for as long as they have existed), I read this article and all the comments with a great deal of interest and curiosity. And I have the following observations, for what they are worth:
1) The camp arguing against using ARM strike me as doing so more from emotion than from logic and cost/benefit analysis of the change.
2) The camp arguing that such a change would not be that difficult, and that Apple has probably streamlined the ability already, seems to me to be using a lot more technical jargon. They seem to provide more examples and evidence. i.e. they seem to me to know more what they are talking about.
What does that mean? Nothing. Just my observation. But I think I find more credence in the camp that says its doable. And personally, given how young the entire computer industry still is, I find it a bit naive to say that a change from Intel should never occur. Who can possibly say where the technology will be at in another 10-20 years? Who can possibly say what the benefits/drawbacks of various processors will be? I also find it ridiculous that some people feel confident in stating outright that ARM could never match Intel. How could they possibly know this. We just recently saw Apple shock everyone by releasing a 64bit ARM. Who saw that coming. Seems that a lot of industry experts and competitors crapped a brick over that one. So if that was kept under wraps so well, who could possibly feel confident stating what ARM can or cannot be able to do in the future?
Personally, i'm more of the opinion that Apple prototypes EVERYTHING, as others have mentioned. Nothing shocking about that. Prototypes serve lots of purposes, and most never see the light of day. And as some have also mentioned, Intel has lacked serious competition lately, and could be the reason they are so slowly advancing. (just look at how bent out of shape some get at the mere hint of changing from Intel. Hard for Intel to feel threatened or feel the need to innovate fast if thats how so many feel). So such a rumor, and such a prototype, is easily worth the cost of making it if for no other reason that it causes an Intel executive to crap his pants, and call an emergency meeting to discuss this... and discuss the need to keep on their toes. I would bet all the money I have that they have done just that.
1) The camp arguing against using ARM strike me as doing so more from emotion than from logic and cost/benefit analysis of the change.
2) The camp arguing that such a change would not be that difficult, and that Apple has probably streamlined the ability already, seems to me to be using a lot more technical jargon. They seem to provide more examples and evidence. i.e. they seem to me to know more what they are talking about.
What does that mean? Nothing. Just my observation. But I think I find more credence in the camp that says its doable. And personally, given how young the entire computer industry still is, I find it a bit naive to say that a change from Intel should never occur. Who can possibly say where the technology will be at in another 10-20 years? Who can possibly say what the benefits/drawbacks of various processors will be? I also find it ridiculous that some people feel confident in stating outright that ARM could never match Intel. How could they possibly know this. We just recently saw Apple shock everyone by releasing a 64bit ARM. Who saw that coming. Seems that a lot of industry experts and competitors crapped a brick over that one. So if that was kept under wraps so well, who could possibly feel confident stating what ARM can or cannot be able to do in the future?
Personally, i'm more of the opinion that Apple prototypes EVERYTHING, as others have mentioned. Nothing shocking about that. Prototypes serve lots of purposes, and most never see the light of day. And as some have also mentioned, Intel has lacked serious competition lately, and could be the reason they are so slowly advancing. (just look at how bent out of shape some get at the mere hint of changing from Intel. Hard for Intel to feel threatened or feel the need to innovate fast if thats how so many feel). So such a rumor, and such a prototype, is easily worth the cost of making it if for no other reason that it causes an Intel executive to crap his pants, and call an emergency meeting to discuss this... and discuss the need to keep on their toes. I would bet all the money I have that they have done just that.
...and what about if this large trackpad will even substitute the keyboard? This will be a logical step reducing the number of parts in products. Using an ARM processor will give the possibility to reduce consumption and open solutions for new energy solutions...;-)
basically an iPad with a keyboard running the full OS (hopefully). If they add 4g connectivity or whatever is available and can keep the price under 1000, they might have a winner.
2014 (or 2006 for that matter) is not 1997. There was a period of several years during which PPC outperformed Intel fairly well with the G3 and G4 families. Then IBM failed to deliver with the G5, and Motorola wandered off where the volumes/profits lay at the lower end, selling PPC processors for automotive applications. Switching to Intel made sense, particularly since Intel had made huge advances in performance/watt compared to just a few years earlier.
As for "a small company and IBM"... PPC was developed by the AIM consortium, which meant Apple, IBM and Motorola. Apple didn't make the chips, but shared in their design. And at the time, both IBM and Motorola not "small companies" by any industry measure.
A little bit of homework can put public embarrassment in abeyance, you know.
Slumping? There are more Window 8.x instances than OS X instances. Windows isn't on a high growth path anymore, but neither is OS X. Personal computers are not frozen into a limited set of form factors anymore. It is a much bigger set now and Windows doesn't necessary get shipped with vast majority of new systems. That means its high growth potential is done but it is still a much bigger player than OS X.
Intel struggling? Struggling to pragmatically "print money" , but it is far from the loosing money stage. A good competitor(s) is necessary to keep Intel on track. They are back to the stage of having that now. Is Intel going to steamroll ARM out of business or into a deeply weaken state ? No. Is ARM going to do that to Intel? Also no.
When has Apple's primary strategy been "even cheaper" Macs?
Apple could crank the margins (and gut performance) with Core i3 and Atom CPUs substituted in the current designs. Think that would make them more market competitive? Not really.
Apple's target market is one which isn't primarily cost sensitive. "Cheapest deal possible" is not what most normal folks go looking to Apple for.
Apple's current overall margins are 3-10x bigger than most PC system focused vendors. They are already high. Greedy for greedy sake doesn't buy Apple much either. It isn't like they are poor or heavily in debt with the current margins. Part of the is just not engaging in unnecessary fratricide with their own products ( so end up with product that have to cover up losses of other products; rob Peter to pay Paul. )
The "cheapest" , most highly commoditized segment of the Windows market is not the market share that Apple has been or will lust after. Even the Windows vendors (and Microsoft) don't particularly like it.... it was just tolerated because it was part of a larger growth+profits market.
The proprietary chip design is already more than justified by the far larger than OS X/Mac market that iOS devices represent. Adding another proprietary design effort specifcally targeted to actual desktop like usage on top of that one and using just the significantly smaller and lower growth OS X user base to support it is what is deeply unmotivated.
I think a solution that might work would be a dual-mode laptop, with both an ARM and i3/5/7 chip inside.
When using Apple's stock apps and any ARM-based apps it uses the ARM, with the appropriate power savings. When it needs more CPU juice it switches to the i series chips.
It'll probably work better than the GPU switching, since it's easier to tell binary architectures apart than "heavy gpu usage."
Maybe they could graft an ARM co-processor onto an i series chip? That would be hilarious.
When using Apple's stock apps and any ARM-based apps it uses the ARM, with the appropriate power savings. When it needs more CPU juice it switches to the i series chips.
It'll probably work better than the GPU switching, since it's easier to tell binary architectures apart than "heavy gpu usage."
Maybe they could graft an ARM co-processor onto an i series chip? That would be hilarious.
This is what they're moving towards by slowly eliminating upgrade functions in their laptops...soldered ram etc.