Google Releasing New Version of Chrome Optimized for Apple Silicon Macs

[Mainyehc]

Why didnt they use a universal/fat binary for both CPUs?

Because they’re idiots, that’s why. That, or they’re just skimping on bandwidth.

 

[Mainyehc]

Just curious, what do you prefer about Safari over Brave? Why do you use Safari instead of Brave as your primary browser? With the changes to Safari in Big Sur and the fact that it's completely optimized for the M1, I'm re-evaluating.

Same as badlydrawnboy, I’ve been using Brave for YouTube for a long time now, as it supported 4K videos in macOS versions in which Safari didn’t, and even though that’s not the case anymore in Big Sur, I’ll likely keep using it in that capacity as it’s a great way to ensure f.lux turns itself off only for YouTube (yes, I know of Night Shift, but I already spend too much time [re]searching, reading and writing on my computer and would rather use f.lux in extreme yellow/red mode for anything but video, photography and design work).

On top of that, Chromium-based browsers allow you to scroll down on YouTube even when in full-screen view; it’s just a shame that the website layout isn’t separated into frames, like in iOS/iPadOS, and that they likely won’t allow the iPadOS app on the Mac App Store or do a Catalyst app anyway. Oh well.

I may consider switching to Safari permanently if they fix at least that (it’s not like I open other websites in fullscreen mode that frequently, anyway, and that’s another configurable trigger for f.lux), which would be nice as I would likely gain windowed video mode as an added benefit – if they don’t end up gimping that functionality or haven’t done so already, as I’ve read somewhere here on MR, that is.

 

[bousozoku]

How do you download the Intel version without knowing? The bright blue button says "Mac with Intel Chip." And if that doesn't dispel the mystery, there's an additional button that says "Check which version...to install"

I'm thinking that early adopters of the M1-based Macs would actually know what they have, and would gleefully click on the other option.

 

[ktecac]

Apple: New M1 chip has best in class battery life
Google: hold my beer

 

[ignatius345]

Apple: here’s a laptop with incredible battery life! You can browse the Internet all day on one charge!

Google: Hold my beer.

(edit: oops, got scooped on that joke one post earlier)

 

[MadeTheSwitch]

I bet you know if you have a diesel vs gas vs electric.

Me yes. But I come from the gasoline business and have firsthand experience of customers not knowing what their car runs on.

But that’s not the real analogy here. It’s who makes the engine. In this case Intel, or Apple? And a lot of people who get a computer as a gift, or secondhand later aren’t going to know that. They aren’t versed in these things like we are.

 

[Ener Ji]

Why didnt they use a universal/fat binary for both CPUs?

Because they’re idiots, that’s why. That, or they’re just skimping on bandwidth.

It's less about bandwidth, and more about Chrome usage on storage-constrained devices. The Universal binary is significantly larger and takes up significantly more space on your drive.

So people who download the intel version without knowing will never get an optimised version unless they manually re-download and select the right one?

Not exactly. The "Apple M1" version is actually a Universal binary - Google knows that the new Macs are not especially space constrained, and if an Intel-CPU-user accidentally downloads the "Apple Chip" version, it will still work.

On the other hand, if an owner of a brand new M1 Mac downloads the Intel version, it will still work under Rosetta2, and the Google updater will (at some point, probably not immediately) quietly replace it with an M1-optimized version.

Eventually it will be possible to detect which Mac platform the user is running at time of initial download, and that will simplify things for users.

 

[adib]

Why didnt they use a universal/fat binary for both CPUs?

Analytics? Save bandwidth?