Apple's Workforce Growth in Oregon Could Point to Desktop-Class CPU Ambitions

[MacsRuleOthersDrool]

Apple only seems motivated by making mobile phones - each new model just slightly faster and incrementally improved but essentially not radically different. When you consider the golden age of Apple between the early 1990s and early 2000s we got new and exciting computers with radically new designs and interfaces. Apple just plays it safe now.

Wrong.

We are at the point now where actual laws of physics are the biggest challenges, and you can't so easily push those around...

Haven't you noticed that CPU speeds have stagnated over the past few years? Why do you think that is?

Hint: It has NOTHING to do with "Playing it Safe".

 

[ActionableMango]

Keep the faith, just a couple more years and that new Mac mini will be rolling off the line.

I like your optimism!

 

[H3LL5P4WN]

Oh I agree, I think any non-Apple machine has some sort of trade off, regardless of price. HPs are junk and ASUS can go suck an egg. Eff Lenovo too. Hell, eff the lot of them. Couldn’t see myself buying anything but Apple.

I just wanted to be less opinionated so I wouldn’t get loads of people calling me out as a fanboy. As it turns out, the opposite happened

LOL. Well, I do have to say that my Omen and it's 27" 165hz monitor are pretty spiffy. Different sort of design goal, however. It's definitely not "clean" or "minimalist."

 

[MacsRuleOthersDrool]

Well, the transition from PowerPC to Intel in 2005/2006 could have been worse. So Apple definitely has some experience in this area. Curious what will happen.

And the previous 68K -> PPC transition was just as seamless.

Apple has the architecture-change thing down pat. Has for a couple of decades now.
[doublepost=1527873705][/doublepost]

You're the first person I've ever seen include the 1992-1997 time period in Apple's golden age. You do realize that Apple almost declared bankruptcy, right?

But not for lack of technical advances...
[doublepost=1527873813][/doublepost]

Let's reinvent the CPU. I hear the wheel could also see some improvements.

Someone could USE to "reinvent" the x86/x64 CPUs.

 

[Millah]

So you define golden age as Apple 2.0 pre-iPhone?

Of course. The big bad iPhone killed Apple. Poor old Mac is neglected now.

 

[MacsRuleOthersDrool]

Personally I wouldn't touch a Mac that couldn't do x86 virtualisation; but it could be very interesting for low-end, long battery life Macs.

I hope it's not a sign of Apple going the Nintendo route. ("Ignore performance, if we go our own route, the user won't care about performance").

I'm pretty sure that whatever Apple does, it will include x86/x64 emulation in hardware.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

And the previous 68K -> PPC transition was just as seamless.

No transition was "seamless" unless your definition of that word significantly differs from the popular version. A third party creation- Rosetta- made the last transition to Intel less painful because Rosetta could fake it for a few years while devs decided to evolve their Mac software (or not) to run native. There is no sign of any kind of Rosetta 2 this time. Hopefully, the lack of a sign doesn't prove to mean that there is actually nothing comparable if this transition comes to pass.

Else, realistic Mac users should expect pain... something akin to the opposite of seamless... UNLESS, they can do pretty much everything they do with their computers on Apple's in-house software, as Apple devs can evolve theirs BEFORE rolling out this kind of Mac. Entities like Adobe, MS, etc might be waiting until close to or after the "big reveal" to get started on evolving their code... or potentially deciding this niche of a niche market is perhaps not worth the trouble.

 

[MacsRuleOthersDrool]

The thing is, is that Windows is moving to ARM to - for the battery life.

In fact it has moved though I think that it only supports 32 but apps right now. Almost certainly they’ll remedy that and move to support 64 bit apps.

So by the time these new Mac ARM machines come out, this shouldn’t be an issue.

MS released a 64-bit ARM-based Windows a month or so ago.

 

[bluecoast]

I'm pretty sure that whatever Apple does, it will include x86/x64 emulation in hardware.

The ironic thing about people worried about x86 Windows compatibility is that even MS isn’t especially interested in Windows anymore.

It’s just something that they do as they have such a big install base.

They’re trying to modernise it yes, but it’s not the their big bet for the future anymore - just a legacy cash cow.

Office 365 (on any platform) and especially Cloud computing, AI and ‘the internet of things’ are all areas that MS are way more focussed on than Windows.

So if Microsoft isn’t too bothered about Windows now, why should Apple be?

 

[CWallace]

It’s not their fault. The Laws of Physics caught up with them. Apple will run into similar issues no matter how much money they have to throw at this.

LPDDR4 support (to allow more than 16GB of low-power RAM in a laptop) does not require a 10nm process. Intel's timelines ended up being too ambitious so they assumed by the time LPDDR4 was mainstream, they would be making 10mm process CPUs and therefore designed their 14nm CPUs around LPDDR3e (which is limited to 16GB).

 

[wigby]

Personally I wouldn't touch a Mac that couldn't do x86 virtualisation; but it could be very interesting for low-end, long battery life Macs.

I hope it's not a sign of Apple going the Nintendo route. ("Ignore performance, if we go our own route, the user won't care about performance").

Apple is very much like Nintendo in that way and more. The problem is that Nintendo only does games so they only have to deal with content consumption. Apple has billions of consumers but only millions of pros or content producers so their larger consumer base will always have priority.

 

[MacsRuleOthersDrool]

No transition was "seamless" unless your definition of that word significantly differs from the popular version. A third party creation- Rosetta- made the last transition to Intel less painful because Rosetta could fake it for a few years while devs decided to evolve their Mac software (or not) to run native. There is no sign of any kind of Rosetta 2 this time. Hopefully, the lack of a sign doesn't prove to mean that there is actually nothing comparable if this transition comes to pass.

Else, realistic Mac users should expect pain... something akin to the opposite of seamless... UNLESS, they can do pretty much everything they do with their computers on Apple's in-house software, as Apple devs can evolve theirs BEFORE rolling out this kind of Mac. Entities like Adobe, MS, etc might be waiting until close to or after the "big reveal" to get started on evolving their code... or potentially deciding this niche of a niche market is perhaps not worth the trouble.

I wholeheartedly disagree with nearly every word of your post.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

That's fine. Apparently, we just remember transitions differently or how we define "seamless" is very different. But to each his own.

I'll certainly hope that if this plays out as rumored, it goes as you are imagining it may instead of how think it will go. I'd much prefer completely "seamless" to how I remember prior transitions.

 

[Marx55]

Not good. Did Apple learn from the PowerPC fiasco? We need x86 compatibility with the 97% of the world, and that means Intel chips inside Macs! Otherwise, it is a deal breaker and switch to Windows. A shame for all.

 

[DNichter]

In this matter, your faith is bigger than that of a mustard seed; mine isn't.






As others have pointed out elsewhere, there is no software equivalent to Rosetta for this transition. MS is trying to move to ARM but has encountered a number of problems and limitations, including:

• x64 apps not supported: This doesn’t come as a surprise. Windows 10 on ARM doesn’t support emulation of x64 apps. However, these might be supported in the future.
• Only ARM64 drivers supported: Even though Windows 10 on ARM can run x86 apps, it can’t use x86 drivers. It wouldn’t be a problem unless you have older devices. In that case, driver support will not be available. Driver support for Windows 10 on ARM will be more limited, kind of like what Windows 10 S offers.
• Apps which modify the Windows experience will probably not work correctly: Apps like input method editors or assistive technologies will not work properly on Windows 10 on ARM. Apps which come with shell extensions such as Dropbox may not work correctly either. They will have to be natively compiled for ARM.
• Some games and apps don’t work: Apps and games which use a version of OpenGL later than 1.1 or which need hardware accelerated OpenGL will not work on Windows 10 on ARM. Games which use anticheat mechanisms will not work either.
• Apps which presume that every ARM-based device suns a mobile version of Windows may not work as intended. Some apps which were made for Windows Phone will not work correctly and might appear in the wrong orientation or have UI layout issues. However, there wouldn’t be many apps like these.
• The Windows Hypervisor Platform is not supported. You will not be able to run virtual machines using Hyper-V.

I would expect the same equivalent issues to hold true for macOS, as well.




You are very optimistic.




With all due respect, you are overstating the other poster's position using the word "hate." Your posts can tend to grate on others--they do on me. Most of the posts which you write endorse the iOS ecosystem and proclaim the wonders of iOS for your workflow. That is great, for you. Please understand that there are many of us who, unlike you, are unable to accomplish our work on an iOS device and consequently require x86-64 hardware and software for our livelihood. This does not mean that we "hate" Apple when we debate a transition in CPU architecture; rather, it means that there is a bit of angst as Apple appears to be abandoning many of its users who have been with the company through its transitions and rely on a certain workflow to accomplish tasks and make a living. Simply telling others to change or leave and mis-characterizing their posts is neither an answer nor decent debate / conversation.






We should all be bracing for this possibility. MS received push-back when they announced Windows on ARM just because of this very issue--MS intended / announced that only apps approved and purchased or downloaded through the MS Store were to be installed on ARM computers. I don't know if MS backed down on this, but I would expect in large part that the push from both MS and Apple toward ARM will lead to a walled garden for app developers and end users--all in the name of security.

Again, this has nothing to do with the posters underlying argument. I am totally okay with an open discussion and trading opinions. This individual does not present it as such. In regards to my other posts where I am discussing my appreciation for iOS and the flexibility it has given me in my personal and work life. If it doesn’t apply to you, why even bother quoting me. That’s fine if you don’t feel the same way, but trying to downplay my enthusiasm when it’s a positive for me and many others, doesn’t make Apple change their direction. If you don’t like the direction Apple is headed, you have a few choices and I’m sure you know what they are. To me, they are a business and I have absolutely zero influence in the direction they are headed. If I didn’t like it, I wouldn’t buy their products.

 

[bobenhaus]

I think Apple wants to converge both iOS and MacOS so their apps can be interoperable on all devices. I also see ones thing and that can be Apple is not focusing on GPU's at all and possible mobile GPU's gong forward in the future for all devices.

 

[Cybbe]

If there is no Rosetta 2, there will be migration pain that could last years for those that lean on Mac software NOT created in house at Apple. Adobe? Microsoft? Etc. We should not delude ourselves into believing that such entities can simply recompile and their software will run fine on A-Series Macs. Even with the bridge of Rosetta, it took those kinds of companies a couple of YEARS to transition to Intel Macs. We should not fool ourselves into believing it's basically some kind of flip-a-few-switches proposition. There will be pain... especially if there is no Rosetta 2.

If I were to guess, they would likely try to leverage existing iOS apps. There are suggestions they are at least considering something along those lines. Adobe and MS do have apps for iOS, although they are still limited compared to their desktop counterparts. It could at least make the transition easier.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...have-plan-to-combine-iphone-ipad-and-mac-apps

 

[chrmjenkins]

The above has nothing to with anything that is "desktop" processor specific at all. Cache Coherency protocols are important when you have multiple computational cores all working in parallel. The current A-series SoC have that in spades already. As the core count increases so does the importance of doing design validation increase in this space. As long as the A-Series iOS keeps upping cores (not just ARM but GPU and "AI" cores that happen to drawn on the same pool of memory) cache coherency complexity/verification is going to go up. Absolutely nothing specifically to do with desktop at all.

They already have this technical expertise at their existing sites. An expansion of manpower, particularly at a distinct site, would indicate a new scope of work beyond their current design endeavors.

While iOS device core counts could continue to increase, they will certainly increase in a design intended for higher power budgets. The job posting is pretty explicit about non-iOS usage cases as well. I would say surprisingly so.

System boards in iPads could expand into non-stacked on SoC RAM chips that sat on independent memory busses ( so could get to wider memory ). [ more integration of the board components frees up space, without necessarily eating into battery space by expanding overall logic board size. ]

They’ve already done this, with the early high resolution iPads. Those had 128-bit busses to off-chip RAM. Moving forward, I would expect them to keep the RAM on package in iOS devices, particularly with the forthcoming 2.5D and 3D packaging options that will lower the power cost per bit transferred.

Using a memory controller that Intel gave you in the package you bought is significantly different than implementing one. That is not familiarity. Practical familiarity would be having done it.

The familiarity comes from their iOS devices that feature LPDDR memory. The usage in the MacBook line is intended to show the fact that a transition to a lower power ARM MacBook would be straightforward from a memory perspective because they’d be using a LPDDR interface they were already familiar with from iOS devices.

Right! Orlando went through hiring spurts and it all got plowed into the A-series solutions for iOS devices.
So why is another hiring spurt all about desktops and non-iOS ????????????????? There is no rational connection there.
Orlando is not likely suddenly building a laptop/desktop GPU. As the transistor budget get bigger then incrementally build bigger, more complex GPUs but that doesn't take them out of a primary focus on iOS space.

The platform architect is distinct from job postings we’ve seen before and very broad in its language.

 

[mrothroc]

This could be capacity building for a desktop class processor, or it could be something entirely different: augmented reality. Apple is building an AR toolset. They are very likely building the skills they need to build an AR device.

A fully immersive AR experience requires high performance to a) process sensor data b) run ML recognizers on objects and c) render extremely high resolution, high frame rate graphics in stereo. You also have to maintain a world state that is shared among both these functions and the actual applications. The only way you can do this in a portable device is with custom hardware that looks a lot like what you see here.

Magic Leap has something called a Lightpack. Apple is going to have to build something similar. Maybe these are the facilities and people that are going to do it.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

If I were to guess, they would likely try to leverage existing iOS apps. There are suggestions they are at least considering something along those lines. Adobe and MS do have apps for iOS, although they are still limited compared to their desktop counterparts. It could at least make the transition easier.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...have-plan-to-combine-iphone-ipad-and-mac-apps

I think that's a very likely guess... but then scary too. How often do even us Apple fans use the "dumbed down" phrase to describe iOS versions of apps on macOS now? Now imagine those becoming THE versions for up to a few years while each developer perhaps watches & waits to see what kind of uptake this new kind of Mac would get. In the prior transition, it felt like it was at least about 2+ years for the more popular titles NOT coded by Apple to become new platform native. Some majors NEVER evolved.

If that repeated within this concept, how excited are we at the prospect of leaning on iOS-like (or maybe iOS+) versions for upwards of 2+ years? Since I make a living with my Macs, I would NOT be excited at all. iOS versions are OK for little tasks but I definitely need the "big boy" versions of apps to get real work done.

Now, of course, not everyone is me- in fact, no one else is- so I'm sure there are those- especially the "Apple is always right" segment that will basically buy and evangelize just anything Apple wishes to do and anything they roll out. But the Mac base is already so very small relative to Windows. Do we want devs thinking about another round of Mac-owner fragmentation?

We should recognize there would be this period where there are both Intel Macs and A-Series Macs. Those of us that won't just buy anything Apple wants to sell would probably wait to see how readily the new kind of Mac is adopted... especially relative to how enthusiastic non-Apple, mainstream devs are about transitioning their software toward native. If that's slow, don't we cling to our Intel Macs instead of embracing the new ones for longer than normal? And if so, don't devs potentially keep waiting for more Mac people to show they are willing to buy the new type to justify the dev. Classic chicken & egg proposition.

And then there's always fears of some devs deciding that the iOS version or an iOS+ version is "good enough" rather than fully migrating a classic macOS version to this mac+iOS version.

I can fall right into the dream sequence here- that this could be fantastic if everything falls right in line with it. But I just don't trust that "if" part. Macs are almost orphan computers already- even Apple seems to have waning interest in them. Do we really believe major devs not named Apple would be very enthusiastic about another huge migration?

 

[ssgbryan]

That's fine, you come on here just to hate anything positive about Apple. I wouldn't expect you to agree.

But you didn't answer the question.

Based on what you have told us about what you do with an iPad, you don't actually do anything that couldn't be done with a 286 class computer.
[doublepost=1527878229][/doublepost]

I wholeheartedly disagree with nearly every word of your post.

I don't - Most of the software I use took years to run reliably. I hung onto 10.6.8 until the release of Yosemite due to software delays.

Perhaps you don't mind living with ver 1 editions of all of your software, but I am not living through that again.

Easier to transition to Windows.

 

[DNichter]

But you didn't answer the question.

Based on what you have told us about what you do with an iPad, you don't actually do anything that couldn't be done with a 286 class computer.
[doublepost=1527878229][/doublepost]

I don't - Most of the software I use took years to run reliably. I hung onto 10.6.8 until the release of Yosemite due to software delays.

Perhaps you don't mind living with ver 1 editions of all of your software, but I am not living through that again.

Easier to transition to Windows.

Sure I did. I said with more power they could potentially release an iPad that could run both iOS and macOS apps when they unify the platforms app store. You're right though, I don't handle any operational tasks, so I don't necessarily need the most powerful computer. I would definitely appreciate using more desktop-like software though if they were able to bring it to market. There is much more to why I prefer using iOS to a traditional computer. I wouldn't expect you to agree with any of it though.

 

[citysnaps]

Why Intel though? They're seeming stuck forever on just trying to get from 14nm to 10nm. Let alone 7nm (which TSCM is already at production level).

From a desktop/laptop standpoint, Intel has been boring and incremental now for ages. AMD has seemingly caught up with and under some circumstances, passed, them.

Not Intel, and not ARM.

It will be Apple’s full-custom processor.

Hillsboro is the right place for recruiting talent.

 

[SecuritySteve]

But can it play Crysis?

 

[bluecoast]

If I were to guess, they would likely try to leverage existing iOS apps. There are suggestions they are at least considering something along those lines. Adobe and MS do have apps for iOS, although they are still limited compared to their desktop counterparts. It could at least make the transition easier.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...have-plan-to-combine-iphone-ipad-and-mac-apps

I’m not a dev, but agree, you’d have to assume that apple would be asking themselves these questions as a project goal:

‘Most of our developers are iOS developers and are familiar with iOS. Some maintain Mac apps. Some only develop for the Mac.

‘We want to bring the iOS software library to the Mac so it can leverage that. We’d like features for apps on both iOS and the Mac to share feature parity.’

‘We’d even love Mac only developers to bring their apps to iOS but we recognise that this is a ‘nice to have’ goal.’

‘Given this, we’ll look to bring the iOS way of developing Macs to the Mac.

‘So what would we have to do to make iOS apps work on the Mac in a way that is native to the Mac UI conventions i.e. Windows, keyboard & indirect manipulation (trackpad & mouse)?’

‘Following from this, what would third party developers need to ‘grow’ their iOS apps into full featured desktop apps & to make the maintainance and development of apps on both platforms, as painless as possible?’

EDIT: What I’m trying to say is that I think that their approach will be to ask their devs to start with the iOS versions of their apps and grow them into their more full featured Mac apps (if they already exist) in this way.

For vendors like Adobe and Microsoft, this is going to be tough. However, I’d not be surprised if one or more apps from these vendors is being developed in this way with help from Apple (MS’s Outlook is an obvious candidate).

And I’d be shocked if Twitter wasn’t involved already in work on porting their iOS app to the Mac in this way.