ARM based MacBook Pro discussion [merged]

[mavericks7913]

You do know that Intel makes multiple CPUs of varying power consumption and ranges? I assume English isn't your first language and that is why you don't pick up on the nuance.

Nobody forced Apple to use high end chips that generate a lot of heat in a tiny package. They could have either designed a better chassis and cooling system OR limited themselves to the lower power chips (like the Macbook).

Apple made the decision to put those in a tiny package, not Intel.

Take your own advice and Google it. You can learn about the range of chips available from Intel.

Dont be a pool. I was born in America. Thank you.

Intel is the only choice! WTH are you talking about? Do you really think that there are other options? AMD? They dont even make powerful CPU for laptop at this point, Who else then? You see, your opinion is out of range. Apple is forced to use Intel CPU because there isnt any other options. Tell me if Intel has multiple high-end CPU line up or not? You are the one ignoring the fact here. Yes, Intel makes multiple CPUs but only one line up base on its performance. Do you really think that Apple wanna use low-end CPU for MacBook Pro? Tell me if Intel makes another kind of CPU instead of i9-9900HK with 8 cores.

Also, Intel is using 14nm process since 2015 without improving the process while they just increasing the clock speed and cores. This is why Intel CPU is well known for having extreme temperature with overheating issue. Speak to those techy people about Intel CPU and they def disagree with your opinion. Why are you keep ignoring the fact that Intel is one of the reasons why Mac computers having overheating issue?

If you truly believe that Apple is the only factor causing this problem, then you are WRONG. You seriously do not care about Intel as a factor.

 

[throAU]

Yes. CPU wise the ipad pros are great. They just need macOS and more memory to compete with the macbook pro.
[doublepost=1559287138][/doublepost]

I'm not convinced we'll see this come to fruition honestly... Not unless computing changes dramatically first. Ditching Intel wouldn't be an easy choice for Apple as it isn't just about the CPU, but also about the package that Intel provides.

For instance, Thunderbolt 3 is an Intel specification that is core to the portability of the MacBook...

The last time Apple did an architecture swap the "Desktop" OS was the only option. With the entire industry moving mobile first if Apple were to force another transition they would effectively kill off their Mac business. ARM to X86 emulation isn't super performant either.... If it were you'd see tons of Windows laptops running ARM chips today and using Windows 10 on ARM which supports this emulation out of the box...

What we'll likely see is more Apple custom ARM chips powering enhancements to the Mac like the T2 is doing...

Intel are boned. They are so far behind AMD and Apple in CPU design, they’re going to take at least until 2021-2022 to catch up. The recent security issues (Meltdown, RIDL, Zombieload, etc.) have basically wiped out the past 5-8 years of CPU speed improvements for them. Their 10nm process is a joke and 3-4 years late.

Apple are in a unique position - they could potentially put out a 16-32 core ARM cpu at any point in the next year or so and have the level of control over the OS, and applications in the app store to make cutover relatively seamless - at least for app store users. For those not in the app store, they will resurrect something like Rosetta - like they did for the PPC -> intel shift.

Apps in the app store are uploaded in a bytecode format that enables them to be recompiled as native for future architectures (if i recall, read something about that a year or two back).

As to AMD not being an option for mobile... that changed. 7nm ryzen will offer far more cores in less power with higher IPC than intel. Plus an integrated GPU that isn’t total garbage. Game over. If that’s what Apple wanted to do. But they will more likely use their own custom ARM instead.

 

[maflynn]

Yes. CPU wise the ipad pros are great. They just need macOS and more memory to compete with the macbook pro.

How much attention will apple be giving the MBP, that's the question. Apple has been criticized by many here for years because they've been so focused on the iPad and iPhone with the idea that they want people to use the iPad over the MBP. I don't see that changing much I suppose. They see the iPad as the future

Intel are boned. They are so far behind AMD and Apple in CPU design,

They have their issues, to be sure but I don't think they're "boned" Intel is still rolling out some fast CPUs, What we don't know with regards to Apple's ARM design, how well does it scale? Right now, its in devices that effectively single task. The iPad and iPhone have some rudimentary multitasking but nothing coming close to how many apps can run at that same time on the PC

Apple are in a unique position - they could potentially put out a 16-32 core ARM cpu at any point in the next year or so and have the level of control over the OS, and applications in the app store to make cutover relatively seamless - at least for app store users. For those not in the app store, they will resurrect something like Rosetta - like they did for the PPC -> intel shift.

I disagree, I think the MAS has largely been a failure, so much so Apple has struggled to entice developers to embrace it, but many Mac developers balk at giving apple 30% of their revenue. I know apple wanted the MAS to be like the iOS app store but that never really happened. Large professional apps won't easily be converted to ARM. Especially legacy apps, like photoshop (just look at how long adobe is taking to get PS for iOS), MS office, Premiere pro, InDesign, etc

My opinion is that Apple is in an odd position right now. They're dealing with a number of quality issues, and bad PR. A number of long time and not so long time apple fans have decided to leave the platform (the volume is a drop in the bucket I know) and their prices are one of the highest in the industry. Let me put it this way, do you think consumers, prosumers, professionals will be willing to spend 2.5k to 4.5k on a laptop that is ARM based, with many of the apps they need will not run (At least natively), Compare that with other ARM based laptops selling for significantly less. ARM based laptops have been positioned as a low cost alternative, will Apple try to buck the trend?

 

[cram501]

Dont be a pool. I was born in America. Thank you.

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.

Intel is the only choice! WTH are you talking about? Do you really think that there are other options? AMD? They dont even make powerful CPU for laptop at this point, Who else then? You see, your opinion is out of range. Apple is forced to use Intel CPU because there isnt any other options. Tell me if Intel has multiple high-end CPU line up or not? You are the one ignoring the fact here. Yes, Intel makes multiple CPUs but only one line up base on its performance. Do you really think that Apple wanna use low-end CPU for MacBook Pro? Tell me if Intel makes another kind of CPU instead of i9-9900HK with 8 cores.

Take a look at intel ark to get an idea of the range of CPUs Intel has available. You keep insinuating that Apple was forced to make a laptop with a small enclosure with very specific CPUs. Nobody put a gun to their head.

Did you see a law that required Apple to do this? As you said: "You are the one ignoring the fact here".

Also, Intel is using 14nm process since 2015 without improving the process while they just increasing the clock speed and cores. This is why Intel CPU is well known for having extreme temperature with overheating issue. Speak to those techy people about Intel CPU and they def disagree with your opinion. Why are you keep ignoring the fact that Intel is one of the reasons why Mac computers having overheating issue?

Are you joking here? Do you actually read what you write? If Intel builds a CPU that runs at 200c, is it Apples fault it doesn't run in their laptop enclosure?

My MBP early 2013 has throttled from day one and it used the 22nm process. Quite throwing the lithography around like it is the base of the issue. This isn't a new issue. It has existed for at least SIX years. I like the laptop and I am still using it but the cooling solution wasn't very well done.

My Dell XPS doesn't throttle. My iMac Pro cruises along at 45c. My iMac mini doesn't throttle. My old windows HP laptop doesn't throttle. They all use Intel CPUs. Both laptops crank along although they do get hot.

If you truly believe that Apple is the only factor causing this problem, then you are WRONG. You seriously do not care about Intel as a factor.

I did say Intel CPUs ran hot. I just said Apple could have chosen a better cooling solution and/or enclosure that could handle the heat or not used those chips. Apple is the ONLY DECISION maker on which CPUs they chose to use. That is the actual focus of this discussion.

You are right. I'm not going to blame a component maker (Intel) for something a customer (Apple) uses it for.....

Blaming Intel is like blaming the supplier of the flour that your bagel tasted bad.

 

[MrGunnyPT]

I'm a bit sad to see so many people totally gung-ho with the Mac moving to a new architecture that is incompatible with the rest of the PC industry.

One of the Mac's biggest strengths right now is that compatibility. The Mac is, basically, an x86 EFI PC. It can run other operating systems that run on regular PCs. Heck, regular PCs can run MacOS with some finagling, though Apple isn't too big on encouraging that.

Do we REALLY want the Mac to turn into a proprietary, closed architecture system like iOS devices? If you want that, you can buy an iPad or iPhone and enjoy an Apple ARM system to your heart's content.

Let Macs continue to be industry-standard EFI PCs. They are a lot more flexible and capable as a result. We will miss that A LOT if Apple moves to ARM on Macs.

I'm sure there will be hybrid options in the future and Intel/AMD option because of professionals.

Personally I still can't move to ARM because I work in SAP which is x86 only.

 

[mavericks7913]

"Take a look at intel ark to get an idea of the range of CPUs Intel has available. You keep insinuating that Apple was forced to make a laptop with a small enclosure with very specific CPUs. Nobody put a gun to their head.

Did you see a law that required Apple to do this? As you said: "You are the one ignoring the fact here"."

1. FALSE. Are there any other i9-9900HK? NO. There arent any other high end Intel CPU that MacBook Pro has. Are you going to ask Apple to use processors from MacBook and Air? Then you are trolling.

You are ignoring the fact that Intel is the only supplier for Apple's laptop series. Do Apple use ARM or AMD? There is only one supplier with only one line up.

"Are you joking here? Do you actually read what you write? If Intel builds a CPU that runs at 200c, is it Apples fault it doesn't run in their laptop enclosure?"

2. Im not. You are. The point is BOTH APPLE AND INTEL ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR HAVING HOT LAPTOP.

"My Dell XPS doesn't throttle. My iMac Pro cruises along at 45c. My iMac mini doesn't throttle. My old windows HP laptop doesn't throttle. They all use Intel CPUs. Both laptops crank along although they do get hot."

3. Like I said, your experience does not represent overall experience. Bring proofs and information if you wanna say that way.

"Blaming Intel is like blaming the supplier of the flour that your bagel tasted bad."
4. LOLOL. Since Intel is the only supplier, whom am I suppose to blame? It's a fact that Intel is having overheating issue with their CPU.

 

[cram501]

"Take a look at intel ark to get an idea of the range of CPUs Intel has available. You keep insinuating that Apple was forced to make a laptop with a small enclosure with very specific CPUs. Nobody put a gun to their head.

Did you see a law that required Apple to do this? As you said: "You are the one ignoring the fact here"."

1. FALSE. Are there any other i9-9900HK? NO. There arent any other high end Intel CPU that MacBook Pro has. Are you going to ask Apple to use processors from MacBook and Air? Then you are trolling.

I think at this point you either have not read what I wrote or are intentionally just being argumentative. Apple had a choice whether to use a high end CPU or not to use one. They don't need to compete in that space and I don't think they've done a great job at it. Adequate maybe.

You are ignoring the fact that Intel is the only supplier for Apple's laptop series. Do Apple use ARM or AMD? There is only one supplier with only one line up.

Apple has a choice of CPUs to use. AMDs new mobile chips are intriguing and may put Intel on their heals. Either way, they could use lower end chips if they chose. Whether they should or not is up to APPLE, not INTEL.

2. Im not. You are. The point is BOTH APPLE AND INTEL ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR HAVING HOT LAPTOP.

Apples laptop woes are their responsibility. Not Intels.
Dells laptop woes are their responsibility. Not Intels.
HPs laptop woes are their responsibility. Not Intels.

There is a theme there.

"My Dell XPS doesn't throttle. My iMac Pro cruises along at 45c. My iMac mini doesn't throttle. My old windows HP laptop doesn't throttle. They all use Intel CPUs. Both laptops crank along although they do get hot."

3. Like I said, your experience does not represent overall experience. Bring proofs and information if you wanna say that way.

I just gave you perfectly good examples. What other "proofs" would you like?

Your like a little kid with his fingers in his ears yelling "I can't hear you! I can't hear you!".

"Blaming Intel is like blaming the supplier of the flour that your bagel tasted bad."
4. LOLOL. Since Intel is the only supplier, whom am I suppose to blame? It's a fact that Intel is having overheating issue with their CPU.

Apple has a overheating issue with their choice of cooling solution and enclosure. Intel doesn't have a problem since they are not involved in the design.

At this point you seem really angry that Apple may not be perfect.

The fact that the bagel shop burnt their bagels is not the flour suppliers fault.

 

[duervo]

Let me put it this way, do you think consumers, prosumers, professionals will be willing to spend 2.5k to 4.5k on a laptop that is ARM based, with many of the apps they need will not run (At least natively), Compare that with other ARM based laptops selling for significantly less. ARM based laptops have been positioned as a low cost alternative, will Apple try to buck the trend?

That's the $1,000,000,000 question. I predict that, yes, they will try to buck the trend. #courage

 

[cram501]

That's the $1,000,000,000 question. I predict that, yes, they will try to buck the trend. #courage

It will be interesting to see what Apple comes up with on the ARM side of things. It could be great... or not. I'm assuming, at least initially, it will at least be in between on some their lower end macbooks. There are so many features we are currently used to, it will be interesting to see what is included and what is not.

 

[duervo]

It will be interesting to see what Apple comes up with on the ARM side of things. It could be great... or not. I'm assuming, at least initially, it will at least be in between on some their lower end macbooks. There are so many features we are currently used to, it will be interesting to see what is included and what is not.

Yeah, my main concern will be with processor's ability to sustain performance with long-running tasks/jobs. iPad and iPhone workloads don't involve a lot of that type of stuff, and the Geekbench benchmarks don't test for it either.

People are up in arms right now with the new MacBook Pro's, and their ability to sustain performance for long running tasks. Some say they're fine. Others say that the products are "thermally constrained" (meaning they run "slower" than they "could" due to the thermal design of the MacBook Pro.)

Given that controversy, Apple has to make sure they hit the ball out of the park with this ARM stuff, if they really are going to do it. Good performance for sustained workloads. They have their work cut out for them.

 

[mavericks7913]

"I think at this point you either have not read what I wrote or are intentionally just being argumentative. Apple had a choice whether to use a high end CPU or not to use one. They don't need to compete in that space and I don't think they've done a great job at it. Adequate maybe."
They NEED to compete. Do you really think Apple is not competing with others? Also, Intel does not provide another high end CPU line up.

"Apple has a choice of CPUs to use. AMDs new mobile chips are intriguing and may put Intel on their heals. Either way, they could use lower end chips if they chose. Whether they should or not is up to APPLE, not INTEL."
HAHAHHA. AMD doesn't even have 8 core with higher clock speed. Are you joking? Also, Apple will going to move from Intel to ARM. WTH are you saying? You already out of topic.

"Apples laptop woes are their responsibility. Not Intels.
Dells laptop woes are their responsibility. Not Intels.
HPs laptop woes are their responsibility. Not Intels.

There is a theme there."

You are being an ignorant. Why do you think that Intel is not responsible since they are providing HOT CPU? I guess you won't gonna blame an engine with overheating issue when you have a car right? If the engine has a problem, I guess you also won't gonna blame them. How ironic.

I just gave you perfectly good examples. What other "proofs" would you like?

Your like a little kid with his fingers in his ears yelling "I can't hear you! I can't hear you!".

Then provide proofs. Don't be a kid. Proofs that Intel is NOT responsible.

"Apple has a overheating issue with their choice of cooling solution and enclosure. Intel doesn't have a problem since they are not involved in the design."
WRONG. Intel provided CPU with overheating issue. Stop ignoring the fact.

"At this point you seem really angry that Apple may not be perfect.

The fact that the bagel shop burnt their bagels is not the flour suppliers fault."
LOL, then don't blame an engine with overheating issue that a car can not replace it since there is only one engine available. The flour suppliers are the worst example for your claim.

You are saying: My car is overheating! Oh well, its engine is not a problem but the chassis.

 

[cram501]

WRONG. Intel provided CPU with overheating issue. Stop ignoring the fact.

I have a dozen times in this thread. You need a course in reading comprehension. The CPUs only overheat and throttle when not cooled properly.

Simple facts:

• Intel makes CPUs. A whole variety of CPUs with different power requirements for different uses.
  
• As power requirements go up, heat generation goes up.
• As heat generation goes up, cooling requirements go up.
• Tiny enclosures for smaller laptops are hard to cool and in some cases not possible. This is true for many laptops.
• A proper cooling solution is the responsibility of the maker of the laptop. This is true for ALL laptop manufacturers.
  
• There is NO law requiring Apple to use CPUs they can't cool in tiny enclosures. This is true for ALL laptop manufacturers.
• Intel DOES NOT require Apple to use CPUs they can't cool in tiny enclosures. This is true for ALL laptop manufacturers.
  
• The U.S. government DOES NOT require Apple to use CPUs they can't cool in tiny enclosures. This is true for ALL laptop manufacturers.
  
• God DOES NOT require Apple to use hot CPUs (making a guess on this one)

That seems pretty apparent. If you don't disagree with the points above, we are in agreement that Intel makes CPUs that need to be adequately cooled by the laptop vendor. I'm sure Intel could give some pointers on possible cooling solutions but it isn't their responsibility.

I'll take a shot here and say I think you are poorly communicating that Apple must use the top end chip to compete. They don't have to compete in this space. It is apparent lately they aren't taking this level of laptop too seriously (heat, keyboard, etc..). I'm not saying Apple shouldn't use the best, fastest, hottest CPUs in top end laptops. If they do, they should size the enclosure and cooling solution accordingly (as any laptop maker should... many don't).

I have a MBP Early 2013 that has always throttled. This is not a new problem. Given that my 2013 throttles, I'd say it is at least a six year old problem.

I'm not sure what you disagree with above except to say "You don't have any proofs!".

I am hoping their next design with the 10nm chips are better at both performance and cooling. It will be interesting to see how hot ARM chips get in order to compete in this space.

 

[mavericks7913]

• Intel makes CPUs. A whole variety of CPUs with different power requirements for different uses.

I SAID, do they have different versions of i9-9900HK that MacBook Pro has? Different power consumption and CPU model is meaningless since there is only one line up of CPU to use for MacBook Pro series. Seriously, Even Apple does not provide lower CPU that MacBook and Air uses.

• As power requirements go up, heat generation goes up.

AMD does not require higher power and yet they are powerful than CPU. I told you. Since 2015, Intel kept using 14nm process for a long. This is why CPU become more hotter.

• Tiny enclosures for smaller laptops are hard to cool and in some cases not possible. This is true for many laptops.

Because Intel is the only supplier for a long time until AMD showed Ryzen line up. Then why Apple is planning to switch from Intel to ARM just because of performance and heat? iPad Pro does not overheat and does not require a cooler and yet the benchmark is similar to 15 inch MacBook Pro.

• A proper cooling solution is the responsibility of the maker of the laptop. This is true for ALL laptop manufacturers.

Even with the proper cooling solution, laptop is not meant to be cool downed like desktop. Intel is also responsible to make cooler CPU.

• There is NO law requiring Apple to use CPUs they can't cool in tiny enclosures. This is true for ALL laptop manufacturers.

And yet they put i9 series!! Are you trolling or what? You said they have a choice. You see, most manufacturers are using Intel CPU since they are the only supplier with better performance despite the overheating issue.

• Intel DOES NOT require Apple to use CPUs they can't cool in tiny enclosures. This is true for ALL laptop manufacturers.

i9 series on laptop? Give me a break.

• The U.S. government DOES NOT require Apple to use CPUs they can't cool in tiny enclosures. This is true for ALL laptop manufacturers.

Why US gov has to deal with this?

• God DOES NOT require Apple to use hot CPUs (making a guess on this one)

Excuse me, and yet, Apple put one of the hottest CPU, i9, on their laptop.


I guess you know nothing about how CPU works. Don't you dare to put idiotic information on this website.

Your logic is simply failed: You are not blaming the engine from a car which is causing overheating due to poor engineering design while you are blaming the vehicle's overall design including plates. The engine is Intel and the car itself is Apple. Both manufacturers ARE responsible no matter what you are saying.

 

[cram501]

Your logic is simply failed: You are not blaming the engine from a car which is causing overheating due to poor engineering design while you are blaming the vehicle's overall design including plates. The engine is Intel and the car itself is Apple. Both manufacturers ARE responsible no matter what you are saying.

I don't know what is more astonishing: your lack of reading comprehension or your lack of basic logic. Your ignorance level is high.

To summarize:

I say Apple didn't have to use the i9. They could have chosen a cooler chip. Even if they did use the i9, they could have made a better enclosure and cooling solution. Apple should cool the chip better.

Your argument:

• Apple made it with an i9, so they had to make it with the i9.
  
• There is only one i9. There is only one chip!
  
• Intel makes a hot chip. If only they would cool it for Apple, it would be better.
• Intel keeps using 14nm! OMG!

Intel makes their specifications very clear. They make the thermal requirements very clear. They have for years. If Apple chooses to design a system that limits the power of the chip because they want to make the enclosure slim, that is the Apples decision. Intel has nothing to do with it.

See! It is simple!

And as far as your analogy, it is wrong.

If Ford bought an engine from a supplier and designed the car such that their radiator couldn't cool it, it would be the engine makers fault? Even though the engine maker specifications said you had to have more cooling, why wouldn't I blame Ford?

By your logic:

• Baker burns their bagel. It is the flours suppliers fault.
• Ford chooses not to have an adequate radiator in their car. It is the engine makers fault.
• Apple limits the power of the cpu based on Apples cooling solution. It is Intels fault.

See how that works? Can't make it much clearer. Some higher education might help you.

Regardless, we should get back on to the topic at hand. You can rant and rave on those that think Apples possible decision to go to ARM is a bad idea.

I apologize for hi-jacking the thread.

I guess you know nothing about how CPU works. Don't you dare to put idiotic information on this website.

This one actually made me laugh out loud. Oh how dare I!?

 

[mavericks7913]

I don't know what is more astonishing: your lack of reading comprehension or your lack of basic logic. Your ignorance level is high.

To summarize:

I say Apple didn't have to use the i9. They could have chosen a cooler chip. Even if they did use the i9, they could have made a better enclosure and cooling solution. Apple should cool the chip better.

Your argument:

• Apple made it with an i9, so they had to make it with the i9.
  
• There is only one i9. There is only one chip!
  
• Intel makes a hot chip. If only they would cool it for Apple, it would be better.
• Intel keeps using 14nm! OMG!

Intel makes their specifications very clear. They make the thermal requirements very clear. They have for years. If Apple chooses to design a system that limits the power of the chip because they want to make the enclosure slim, that is the Apples decision. Intel has nothing to do with it.

See! It is simple!

And as far as your analogy, it is wrong.

If Ford bought an engine from a supplier and designed the car such that their radiator couldn't cool it, it would be the engine makers fault? Even though the engine maker specifications said you had to have more cooling, why wouldn't I blame Ford?

By your logic:

• Baker burns their bagel. It is the flours suppliers fault.
• Ford chooses not to have an adequate radiator in their car. It is the engine makers fault.
• Apple limits the power of the cpu based on Apples cooling solution. It is Intels fault.

See how that works? Can't make it much clearer. Some higher education might help you.

Regardless, we should get back on to the topic at hand. You can rant and rave on those that think Apples possible decision to go to ARM is a bad idea.

I apologize for hi-jacking the thread.

This one actually made me laugh out loud. Oh how dare I!?

Since you are NOT understanding about the topic, let me make this simple.

Engine: Intel
Chassis: Apple

You are blaming BMW's chassis for having overheating issue while you are not blaming the engine itself too which is causing overheating due to the poor overall design. How irony is it? Just change the engine to Intel and chassis to Apple.

Too bad since you know nothing about it. I blamed both Intel and Apple for having this issue. Not only Apple. Oh, I totally doubt that you didn't check TDP for Intel and AMD with similar performance.

If you still cant understand this then you seriously need to blame yourself.

 

[kwikdeth]

everybody here is talking nothing but hardware, when its the software, the development tools, the APIs, and how well Apple supports its third party developers that will determine how successful it is. Frankly speaking, I dont have a terrible amount of confidence in Apple in this regard. They'll make it work, but it will be kludgy and awkward for users for a while.

 

[2984839]

I'm looking forward to an end to Intel's stranglehold on the consumer CPU market. Their security track record has been fairly appalling and having only one or two choices is never a good thing. The only reason they built 64 bit x86 CPUs at all was because AMD did it first and was giving Intel real competition.

 

[jimmy43]

Would you prefer to have the most powerful laptop possible sitting on your desk most of the time, or a thin, light, and most importantly, incredibly long lasting laptop under *real* load for 10 hours, the whole day, or even multiple days?

The point of the ARM laptop would not be to replace your desk-based 'thick-client' laptop, it will be to provide 80% of it's benefits, but heavily target mobility, ease of use, OS integration, and a massive iOS ecosystem behind it for software support. These advantage are worth a small performance penalty.

These laptops will *NEVER* be locked down as people here are saying, for the simple reason that Apple needs DevKits for their iOS and the Apple OS ecosystem in general. You will always be able to install anything you want via command line and run any software you want - if you cannot do this, then you will get no support from developers, and thus you will commit ecosystem suicide. Therefore, these laptops will still be PRO laptops aimed at developers/creatives.

As can be seen by the progress of the latest ipads, it's now possible to do most 'productivity' and 'creativity' tasks quite easily using the latest Apple designed ARM processors. You can edit video just fine, play games, multitask, etc. The system in 'Local Mode' is quite capable.

Thinking to 5 years from now, it should be possible to connect to many types of cloud services that can do heavy processing on the fly and on demand. Would you rather train your ML model on your laptop in 15 minutes, or on the cloud in 15 seconds? Not to mention all sorts of collaborative advantages. These kind of workflows are already in place today, and we will see more of these services like Google Stadia start to be viable alternatives to 'Local Mode' in this timeframe.

From Apple's point of view- they also get full control of their hardware stack and thus supply chain - they also get huge costs savings, and most importantly, this allows them to combine 2 separate markets into 1, thus giving much more incentive to developers.

 

[duervo]

I would prefer to have the most powerful laptop possible in my backpack, because I can actually handle the weight of it, but that’s just me. YMMV.

 

[Stephen.R]

I'm sure there will be hybrid options in the future and Intel/AMD option because of professionals.

This is where things will get interesting - will we see a return to fat binaries, that run on both Arm and x86-64, with Arm chips in the cheap/lightweight machines, and x86-64 in the "pro" machines? Perhaps the whole "arm" thing in Macs is about co-processors, like the T2, that take on more and more responsibilities, but leave the capability to have x86-64 code run natively on a dedicated Core/Xeon CPU.

A lot of basic software can run fine on either, but there are some things are either heavily tuned for the x86-64 instruction set, or completely rely on features therein.

 

[pshufd]

This is where things will get interesting - will we see a return to fat binaries, that run on both Arm and x86-64, with Arm chips in the cheap/lightweight machines, and x86-64 in the "pro" machines? Perhaps the whole "arm" thing in Macs is about co-processors, like the T2, that take on more and more responsibilities, but leave the capability to have x86-64 code run natively on a dedicated Core/Xeon CPU.

A lot of basic software can run fine on either, but there are some things are either heavily tuned for the x86-64 instruction set, or completely rely on features therein.

Doing multiple binaries are a pain for software companies. Yes, it can be done but it's a pain and it can potentially introduce errors.

 

[Stephen.R]

Doing multiple binaries are a pain for software companies. Yes, it can be done but it's a pain and it can potentially introduce errors.

Apple/NeXT have done it numerous times, resulting in varying combinations of 68k, ppc, ppc optimised for any of g3, g4 or g5 in 32 or 64 bit and x86 In 32 or 64 bit.

 

[pshufd]

Apple/NeXT have done it numerous times, resulting in varying combinations of 68k, ppc, ppc optimised for any of g3, g4 or g5 in 32 or 64 bit and x86 In 32 or 64 bit.

We have ports for 40 different platforms. I'm not saying that it can't be done. Just that it's a pain. It's expensive and additional platforms increase the odds for bugs and errors.

I've done porting work since the mid-1980s.

 

[theluggage]

The point of the ARM laptop would not be to replace your desk-based 'thick-client' laptop, it will be to provide 80% of it's benefits,

No, the ultimate goal of the ARM chip needs to be to provide 110% of the benefits of your 'thick-client' laptop to most people. Otherwise, Apple might as well just add mouse/trackpad support to the iPad. Short-term, yes, the 12" MB and the Air are the 'low hanging fruit' that could be replaced by the ARM but long term it doesn't make sense for Apple to effectively have 3 'families' of personal computers - iPad, ARM Mac and Intel Mac.

As has been discussed already, the big, probably unavoidable, loss is going to be for the diminishing pool of people who need x86 versions of Windows or Linux. The question is, is supporting virtualised versions of other operating systems that still a sensible priority for a platform who's Unique Selling Point is that it runs MacOS? It's 2019 - a 'real' Windows/desktop Linux machine is the size of a tablet. A virtual linux server just has to be somewhere on the Internet, and 90% of Linux server-side/web development doesn't care if its running on ARM, x86 or, for that matter, MacOS/Darwin. Then, on the other side of the equation, everybody developing for iOS and Android is currently working on x86 but targeting ARM (last I looked, the 'emulator' for iOS worked by compiling the App for x86 - so much for completely mirroring the target environment).

As for current MacOS x86 Apps getting 'ported' to MacOS/ARM - that may be harder or easier depending on the product ultimately, the only barrier to that is whether (a) the developer is still active and (b) they see a market for the product... bearing in mind that getting rid of x86-specific stuff in your codebase might be beneficial for future iOS or Windows-for-ARM versions, too. (It would be interesting to know just how much x86-specific code there is in current MacOS apps - as opposed to the situation in 2005 or earlier). Honestly, the dropping of 32-bit support, Apple's depreciation of OpenGL and apparent bust-up with NVIDIA, the continuing lack of a conventional 'pickup truck' workstation (or a laptop with a decent keyboard!) are just as big - if not bigger - threats to the future of MacOS applications as a switch to ARM.

It might be portability and battery life that set ARM-based MacBook-replacements apart, but dor the pro range, a switch to ARM offers the possibility of lots more processor cores, and all sorts of on-chip codecs, vector processors etc. that Intel can't currently offer. The reason that, so far, ARM chips have been targeted at phones/mobile/embedded is that even Intel couldn't compete with x86 in deskops and workstations (see: Itanium and why the current x86-64 architecture is often called AMD64!).

As I've said before - its not about whether you'll be able to switch on day one. Many won't. The question is whether your work in 3-4 years time will be helped or hindered by using an ARM Mac. If Apple tries to force the change overnight (as they did with the Mac Pro cylinder, the new MacBook Pro designs etc.) then that's obviously a recipe for failure.

It will be interesting to see if either the 12" MacBook or the Mythical Modular Mac Pro get mentioned at WWDC, and if they're going ARM. An Intel MMMP would commit Apple to Intel for the foreseeable future. If they don't at least preview the new MMMP at WWDC then anybody still blindly loyal enough to be waiting for a replacement for their trusty but ageing cheese-grater would probably be happy with something based around an exciting new 68.5-bit chip based on the Z-80.

 

[MrGunnyPT]

This is where things will get interesting - will we see a return to fat binaries, that run on both Arm and x86-64, with Arm chips in the cheap/lightweight machines, and x86-64 in the "pro" machines? Perhaps the whole "arm" thing in Macs is about co-processors, like the T2, that take on more and more responsibilities, but leave the capability to have x86-64 code run natively on a dedicated Core/Xeon CPU.

A lot of basic software can run fine on either, but there are some things are either heavily tuned for the x86-64 instruction set, or completely rely on features therein.

I still think they should do a hybrid chip with an A series to run like t2 but running further apps and such.