Why? ARM supports virtual machines.
In fact the new cloud VMs that Amazon is rolling out run on ARM server boards.
There is X86 emulation already available that runs on top of ARM. It will be easy for Apple to adapt 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 Transitioning Macs to Custom Chips With 'Incredible' Performance Starting Later This Year
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Why? ARM supports virtual machines.
In fact the new cloud VMs that Amazon is rolling out run on ARM server boards.
There is X86 emulation already available that runs on top of ARM. It will be easy for Apple to adapt that.
People who want to run Boot Camp or legacy applications natively. The performance overhead of Rosetta is still an unknown quantity.
At the end of the day this means less choice for consumers which is not a good thing, apple still and will continue to charge premiums. If you already have a mac at least you can run windows, doubt very much new machine will allow you to do so...really thinking of switching their prices are so ridiculous...
I believe it because my iPad runs circles around my old MBP and in certain cases, around my iMac.
Redis should have zero issues. Might need different compiler flags but its available for Debian on arm so no reason it shouldn’t compile.
They’ve spent* the last 10 years experimenting with ARM based iPad chips. They don’t need to worry about how many sales they might make now because they’ve done all of the work already.
I believe based on 15 years experience designing CPUs and 10 years competing against Intel, yes.
It's possible to change the constitution (2nd amendment is the most likely exactly because of the rabid and extremist support) and it's possible to make a better processor than Intel can make, as AMD has recently demonstrated. Apple has more money and engineering talent than Intel and AMD put together.
Not at Intel it isn't... the power difference between their chips five years ago and now is hardly earth-shattering. That's pretty much why Apple is doing this.
Start with a resurrected MacBook (low performance expectations, small battery) for users where the pre-installed apps and the App Store are all they'll ever need.
Then work your way up. If they have Final Cut / Logic Pro / Adobe / Office on board day one then a huge number of people will be pretty happy. Add a high-performance Linux virtualisation and a low-performance Windows virtualisation and you add another big chunk of users with everything they need.
More importantly, there are so many more iOS developers than there are Mac developers that the software ecosystem is going to explode. I'm guessing there are more iOS developers than Windows ones nowadays...
It did work, only not as fast as Apple wanted. So, under your logic: What doesn't work now is Intel, so why not move away from it to a better platform, with the additional benefit that it's now developed in-house and will be a huge differentiator, ala PPC's glory days. A no-brainer to me.
You mean like we only had 4 cores for $300 for the longest time and suddenly cores are dirt cheap once AMD comes back?
Actually it’s your post that’s obsolete. The very instant you hit post. But your MBP will be just fine. Apple doesn’t obsolete hardware for many years.
Yep. One would expect the savvy users to wait and see what the performance/cost ratio is, plus emulation/virtualization options and performance. And then make an informed decision.
Today? Not informed.
The motherboard might cost a bit extra for a 15 CPU design, but still, I like where you’re going.
Yes, some people might want to do that. I'd say most people do not care at all, other people who need the performance will buy shiny new ARM Macs and enjoy the performance uplift of the native apps.
That’s like saying if you already have a house at least you can jump off the roof.
sure, you could, but it’s hardly the best use of it.
Because:
a) it's cheaper to make a single line of machines
b) Apple make better margins on their own chips than Intel's
c) it doesn't look good to continue selling a competitor's CPU when you claim yours is the future and the superior product
The truth is, if this transition goes south, Apple can afford to lose the market share, either dropping to zero. Simply because they don’t depend on it to stay alive.
I think that they’re gambling: if it works, they can increase the profits per unit and they control their own destiny.
The way I see it, the Mac market works more for them like a marketing tool because of content creators. It’s free advertising everyday on YouTube from people like Brownlee, Ritchie, Everyday Dad and similars.
I think that they’re gambling: if it works, they can increase the profits per unit and they control their own destiny.
The way I see it, the Mac market works more for them like a marketing tool because of content creators. It’s free advertising everyday on YouTube from people like Brownlee, Ritchie, Everyday Dad and similars.
