Apple to Begin Merging iOS and OS X With Quad-Core A6 Chip Next Year?

[villicodelirant]

WP7 and Not ubuntu unity. Lets leave the tablet OS'es to the Tablets. I Want OS 11 or Xi or whatever, not iOS and certantly not an ARM chip in my macbook.

I fail to get the reasons behind this vehement opposition to ARM coming from various people.
I am bound to assume you never had a chance to code assembly for the ARM family - I guarantee you it makes sense, it's not a crippled architecture.
Of course, we'll have to see whether there are sensible implementations of it to put in a notebook, too.
But I wouldn't rule that out.

The whole point of intel is COMPATABILITY that is how they got so far up the ladder. Not Because of PowerPC.

I think this is a somewhat reasonable point.
I don't think there's a LOT of people who use Wine or Bootcamp to run Windows applications on a daily basis, but it doesn't certainly hurt.

It remains to be seen whether, in the future, it will be as relevant.

 

[buckers]

Sometimes I feel like I'm the only one who feels Lion isn't ENOUGH like iOS. I mean, I want to be able to use my MacBooks as if they were iPads with more power and customisability: fullscreen an option for all apps, only pinned apps in the dock and others to be accessed through the launchpad, etc, etc. Of course, keep the other options open. Why screw up people's workflow when you don't have to?

 

[aliensporebomb]

Yes...

The only reason I'm using Lion is the OpenGL update. If it weren't for that, I would go back to SL.

I may switch completely to Debian after OS X.

This. The OpenGL improvements are really the only reason I went to 10.7. And it's great. Most of the time you don't even know you're using Lion unless you're looking for mission control or launchpad - it's the good old Mac we've always known and you can shut off the gestures if you want.


Re: ARM:
I'm a content creator. Underpowered energy efficient devices are great for content consumers but the contend creators will still need machines with sufficient power to "do the job".

It's great to have a 10+ hour battery life on an iPad to watch multiple movies on when you're on a transatlantic flight but if you're actually creating something you need more power than even the proposed ARM processors are alleged to have. I believe these guys might be taking a bunch of alleged rumors and creating a story out of their

That and the whole iCloud thing is going to hit a brick wall when every cellular provider in the world pulls unlimited data plans everywhere when every mom, pop and kid in the world decides the smartphone is for them.

I can hear it now "Wah, there was barely enough backhaul for the geeks on the planet to have smartphones but now that everyone has a smartphone we can't build facilities fast enough, wah, wah, yank their unlimited data plans" and then you'll see how many people are using the cloud.

My AT&T plan on my iPhone I was using anywhere from half a gig to three quarters a month but my first month on the few cloud services available with "automatic downloads" boosted my usage to well over 2.5 gigs. The writing is on the wall kids - with more and more people adopting smartphones either the cellular companies are going to have to VASTLY increase their backhaul facilities or a new method will be needed (massive WiFi infrastructure everywhere).

 

[Cloudsurfer]

Great, now the gaming industry is finally catching up with Apple because of their move to Intel, they're switching to ARM.

My 2 cents: goodbye Steam!

 

[Plushzilla]

I just think have so much power in the market and earning so much money has got to there head, now they just want more money.

 

[MacinDoc]

Not going to happen until the 64-bit ARM chips are out. Not a chance. Apple has been pushing hard toward a full 64-bit environment, so any such step backward in hardware or OS X would be too hard a pill to swallow.

 

[MacinDoc]

2016 is not the very very near future and Apple does seem to like to switch platforms every ten years: 68k to PPC (1984-1994), PPC to Intel (1994-2006), and now Intel to ARM (2006-2016). Of course, Apple will cross develop everything and should Intel deliver and ARM falter it could not happen but I believe Apple is looking at the possibility.

It's only prudent to consider all possibilities; after all, 4 years from now, there is no guarantee that Intel will still be the leader in desktop and laptop chips. Relatively speaking, ARM technology is in its infancy, and it may have more potential for growth. Furthermore, since the tech is licensed, Apple has multiple foundries to choose from, with the potential to negotiate more favorable prices, and Apple also has the opportunity to customize the chips. So, although not a likely development in the next 4-5 years, it is certainly a possibility for the future.

Edit: oops, sorry, I thought there was another post after my last one, didn't mean to double post...

 

[dpcontardi]

iOS X

Surely it will be OSXi (eleven) ?

 

[hstewart]

Personally I think ARM including the Apple versions is too under power to run iOS and real environments. Before they make such environment - they should try running OX X applications on iPad first - try running Xcode 4 or Photoshop CS on it.

ARM does have advantage of low power, but to be honest - my Macbook Air power usage is similar to my iPad 2. Especially for the applications running on OX X instead of iOS. Also Intel is planning significant enhancements in low power area.

I think if anything will ever come out of this is dual cpu that machine that has both intel cpu and A5/A6 so iOS applications can be run on it.

My guess the truth of this rumor is the fact that Arm fans really like to push Arm - like Androids stuff - and they want to change public opinion before Intel seriously comes out with competion on Arm on its power usage.

 

[villicodelirant]

Personally I think ARM including the Apple versions is too under power to run iOS and real environments.

Pardon me, but have you tried a recent desktop ARM processor?
I don't, but I wouldn't use ultramobile CPUs as a benchmark to say whether you can get a good desktop ARM CPU.

Ultramobile CPUs are kinda slow and kinda low-power by design.

Allow me to insist: ARM is a perfectly respectable, if relatively simple, architecture.
There is no reason why it can't be on par with x86, given that somebody cares enough to design and manufacture a viable desktop implementation thereof.

Before they make such environment - they should try running OX X applications on iPad first - try running Xcode 4 or Photoshop CS on it.

Don't forget that OS X, Xcode and whatnot have been compiled and run on x86 at Apple for more than half a decade before Apple publicly announced its transition to Intel.

I'm SERIOUSLY willing to bet my ass and balls that somewhere at the Apple campus there is an ARM motherboard running OS X and Xcode.

I think if anything will ever come out of this is dual cpu that machine that has both intel cpu and A5/A6 so iOS applications can be run on it.

It's not gonna happen.
You can't do that.
It's not like you can just solder an ARM CPU on a x86 motherboard.
You would need a complete CPU/RAM/Chipset system, like the old Amiga Sidecar, which was more or less a diskless, headless x86 PC that you could attach to A500s to run DOS apps.

Except that an "iOS Sidecar" is already here, and it's called iPod Touch.
What's more, Apple has already figured out a way to remotely operate it and grab the video output - they use it in keynotes.

 

[rcp27]

As the memory and storage are getting larger and cheaper, putting the base of OSX on all iDevices (including iPods, iPhones, iPads, iMac, MacBooks, Mac Minis, Mac Pros, iTV, ...) has become feasible. Since the OSX is modularized, Apple just needs to put different additional modules on different iDevices. As regards chips, Apple can use any chips on their iDevices as seen fit.

They have already done that. It's called iOS. That's what iOS is. It's a different UI (optimised for touch), on top of the same OS X, running on a different hardware device.

 

[benjs]

At the last few keynotes, PCs have been defined, and post-PC devices have been defined. It seems to me that Apple's opinion on the two products is just that - two discrete products. Can Apple take elements from the operation of each and adapt it for use on the other? Absolutely. Will PCs and post-PCs ever unite as one product? I don't think so. Have I misinterpreted what's being discussed? Please chip in if I have

 

[jji7skyline]

I'd prefer an Intel processor to an A6 :/

 

[ZipZapRap]

OSXi

Oh I can see Jobs promoting it now.. Magical and sexy!

On topic - this is the future.. Convergence. It's happening with hardware in terms of APUs becoming as low-end good as CPU/GPU combinations (APUs allow direct access at a hardware level compared to having to code through various driver API nightmares on the discreet GPU side.. makes up a fair bit in performance because of it) and it will happen in the software space.

Which is only a good thing really.. A mobile and desktop client don't have to LOOK like one another, but if they run the same kernel, I can only see positives for users downstream. Imagine buying a license for Lion's successor, which gives you the option to install it on both a Mac AND iPad, with the iPad offering a different GUI, but essentially being the same OS.

 

[chrmjenkins]

I'd prefer an Intel processor to an A6 :/

And 3 hours of battery life?

 

[gnomeisland]

I'd prefer an Intel processor to an A6 :/

A lot of people (myself included) said the same thing about PowerPC processors when the Intel switch happened. I don't think the transition is a given at this point but I do think it is very likely.

In either case it won't happen until we start to see 64-bit ARM processors that really rival Intel's i3 at least. I doubt that'll be the A6 but perhaps...

 

[nuckinfutz]

It won't be as hard as you might be imagining. If you look closely the merger between OS X and iOS has been going on since day 1.

iOS has slowly added core functionality (literally with Core Image, Core Data and more) from OS X and in turn OS X has based it's media playback architecture on the iOS derived AV Foundation classes.

Right now there is much reusable code that a developer can use should they decide to target the Mac or iOS for their projects.

iCloud neatly ties everything together. In fact for many of my task based needs if the iOS developer doesn't have a Mac version that syncs neatly with their mobile they likely won't make the cut and get on my Mac nor my iPhone/iPad.

At this point I think that the first ARM cores that are 64-bit will be ideal because many of the new API are 64-bit only. ARM would likely be able to deliver a product that is perfect for the user that mainly uses their computer as a communication device. The power savings of an ARM based Macbook Air would likely yield a battery life of 15 hours. I'd take that in a heartbeat in the MBA 11" size

 

[Luis Ortega]

if I can buy a quad core iOS X phone with at least a 64GB SSD, that will be the last phone I ever buy.

Lol...Until the next year, when you find that your new superduper phone will no longer be supported by the next ios and is a micrometer thinner, thus making it a requirement to upgrade.

 

[Switcher2001]

If you look closely the merger between OS X and iOS has been going on since day 1.

iCloud neatly ties everything together. In fact for many of my task based needs if the iOS developer doesn't have a Mac version that syncs neatly with their mobile they likely won't make the cut and get on my Mac nor my iPhone/iPad.

I won’t speak to the ARM issue, but in terms of integration and marketing, it makes sense. Think about these other clues that Apple will merge OS X and iOS: OS X has been around for a decade; it’s time for something new. Why would Apple want to keep working on two separate OS’s? One thing people like about Apple is the integration of all its software and hardware. Look at the competition— Android is already merging the features of its phone OS (Gingerbread) and tablet OS (Honeycomb) in Ice Cream Sandwich. And they’re probably working on merging Android with Chrome OS too.

Here’s the thing that really tells me OS X is moribund: Apple is deliberately frustrating OS X users by making things newer, cooler, and easier on iOS. For example, I’m an iWorks for Mac user. When Apple announced iWorks on iPad, I thought, “Yay! A new version! I’ll go download the Mac version!” Oh, what? No Mac version? Maybe next time. Next time comes around, and now you can get new versions of iWorks on both iPad *and* iPhone (any iOS device). Any new iWorks for Mac? No. Only a point update to help it work better with Lion. Now I have iOS envy just because I want the latest iWork.

The latest big sign that Mac OS X is adorable-baby-iOS’s neglected older sibling is iCloud. Is iCloud any good for people without iOS? Not much. It doesn’t make my life any easier going from my Mac to my MacBook and opening the same iWorks files easily. I’ll just keep using DropBox. No way am I going to drag and drop files into iWork.com. And iCloud doesn’t even make your life much easier if you have one Mac and *one* iOS device. If you really want the advantages of iCloud, you have to buy *two* iOS devices— both an iPad *and* an iPhone.

iCloud is free because Apple is banking on getting money from you when you realize your Mac is becoming neglected and obsoleted and only updated to move you over to iOS. Then you’re going to buy an iPad and iPhone because that’s “where the party is.” I love a love/hate relationship with Apple, and this is the part I hate. Why don’t they just come out and say they’re making the transition? Why does a Mac user like me wait around for months and years for an upgrade to a major part of the Mac experience (iWork) only to find that Apple isn’t going to upgrade it? Why don’t they just say, “We’re not going to upgrade iWorks for iMac anymore. We’re only developing new stuff for iOS because that’s what you’ll be using soon”? They don’t say it. You just have to read between the lines.

 

[blackhand1001]

Pardon me, but have you tried a recent desktop ARM processor?
I don't, but I wouldn't use ultramobile CPUs as a benchmark to say whether you can get a good desktop ARM CPU.

Ultramobile CPUs are kinda slow and kinda low-power by design.

Allow me to insist: ARM is a perfectly respectable, if relatively simple, architecture.
There is no reason why it can't be on par with x86, given that somebody cares enough to design and manufacture a viable desktop implementation thereof.



Don't forget that OS X, Xcode and whatnot have been compiled and run on x86 at Apple for more than half a decade before Apple publicly announced its transition to Intel.

I'm SERIOUSLY willing to bet my ass and balls that somewhere at the Apple campus there is an ARM motherboard running OS X and Xcode.



It's not gonna happen.
You can't do that.
It's not like you can just solder an ARM CPU on a x86 motherboard.
You would need a complete CPU/RAM/Chipset system, like the old Amiga Sidecar, which was more or less a diskless, headless x86 PC that you could attach to A500s to run DOS apps.

Except that an "iOS Sidecar" is already here, and it's called iPod Touch.
What's more, Apple has already figured out a way to remotely operate it and grab the video output - they use it in keynotes.

ARM is not even close to x86. Even the single core atoms (widely considered the worst x86 chips as far as performance go run circles around dual core arm processors such as the a5/tegra 2/omap. Throw in a low power amd brazos that has full out of order execution (something that both the atom and arm cpus lack) and it just goes down the toilet even more. If you wanna bring in high performance cpus it just gets 100 times (literally) worse.

 

[Yamcha]

I don't see this happening on a Desktop, but I think on a laptop it could be possible, the reason is because even today battery life on laptops are still are low especially when you do anything intensive..

But the worry I have is the performance, I don't think It would perform relatively good using a real OS..

 

[Inconsequential]

Unless for the:

1. Macbook/Pro chips: the performance per watt is as good as Intels or better without being slower than the Intels, it won't happen.

2. MacBook Air: very possibly, but only if PPP is better than the ARM chips.

3. Mac Pro/iMac: Not a chance.

Intel will be doing something very wrong if their top end 6/8/10/12/16 core chips are slower than anyone else's, see what a hard time AMD is having trying to keep up.


I could see the Air going to ARM, but nothing else, simply because Intel won't suddenly stop developing x86-64 chips!

 

[roadbloc]

The beginning of the end.

 

[sennekuyl]

I'm not opposed to this, nor the IOS-ification of OSX (gota remember to pronounce that as 'austin'; 'ausex' doesn't cut it!), but have to think the people saying it wont happen are right. The logic doesn't match up, nor the economic benefits --- though they might it the future.