Intel CEO Responds to Rumors of ARM-Based Macs, Says Relationship With Apple Is 'Strong'

[nutjob]

OR, all iOS programmers could "just recompile" their iOS apps to run on OS X. Just ask Nutjob. Apparently so many of them don't want the added revenue or are too lazy to "just recompile" their iOS apps for OS X.

You keep posting that non-sequitur, because you know I'm right. (Or you just have a lack of understanding of the issues.)

Everyone here is discussing porting from one processor to the other without changing anything else.

You're discussing porting from one API to the other.

I guess if it makes you feel better, keep saying it. I note that you don't want reply to me directly. You must have terrific "courage of your convictions"! LOLOLOLOL!

 

[flur]

Speaking from personal experience, iPad + keyboard != MacBook Air. OS X is much more highly optimized for keyboard interaction than iOS is. I tried to use my iPad with a bluetooth keyboard as a laptop replacement for a while, but ultimately switched back to the laptop. The iPad (and iOS in general) is great for consuming data but it is terrible for production. OS X is much stronger in that department.

Well, for me personally, I already own two keyboards that I use interchangeably with my ipad and iphone, and have used "input" on these devices for a large part of the work of my last two novels. Production seems to work just great if you know what you're doing. The limit to working on the ipad isn't the input, it's the apps.

 

[Ted13]

It better be strong or my love for Macs won't be.

I understand if people running Windows on Macs think that, but why OS X only people would think so is beyond me. A8 is way, way more powerful than any other ARM CPUs right now, Apple won't be releasing an Ax for the Macs unless it is doing very well against Intel Core CPUs.

Indeed if Intel is genuinely worried about Apple dumping them, they will be offering to manufacture Apple's Ax iOS CPU in their (USA based) fabs.

 

[junkstory]

I would say this is the most unreliable rumor we have seen from that Chinese company. Apple would have to fight 3 uphill battles if they go with ARM-based Macs:

- competing with Intel (the next Iris Pro will be light years ahead of any ARM-based GPU)

- rewriting OS X (causing significant delays to their annual release)

- convincing all devs, game companies, and Adobe to rewrite all their OS X software, while continuing to develop their existing Intel-based OS X software. Holy smokes, so many software companies cannot handle hiring a new team for the job, and if Apple doesn't get ALL the companies on board, then the average consumer will be scratching their heads as to why they can't install their old apps and games on their new mac.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

For mac developers, if they make use of mostly open-source libraries (and standard mac libraries) like most do, they'll be easily recompiled, as they have already, for linux, for instance. So, for typical apps, they can be recompiled for ARM.

OK. Let's try to buy this belief. Enlighten us on why Windows RT didn't roar. Same basic concept with an OS used by more than 90% of the world's PCs. Why didn't all of the Windows developers just "easily recompile" for RT and make it perhaps more successful than Windows on Intel now?

I'm not trying to make this an OS X vs. Windows debate- just pointing out that there is a reasonable proxy of taking a popular OS that runs on Intel and porting it to run on ARM. Why didn't all that "simply recompile" occur? Why didn't it succeed vs. Windows on Intel? There's so much more money to be made on the Windows side because the market is so much larger than OS X. Yet, even with so much more potential, why didn't all these perceived benefits of dumping Intel for ARM yield?

 

[iSee]

So if all these iOS apps are compiled for three different binarily-incompatible CPUs, how come there's only a single app download from the iTunes app store? How does the one compatible version (out of three) find its way to my iPad?

The answer is the iOS CPUs are all binary compatible, and there is a single executable download. Saying iOS runs in three different types of CPUs is like saying OS X runs on different Intel CPUs. The microarchitectural features may differ, but they are share essentially the same compatible binary instruction set.

The iOS apps you download have multiple binaries packaged into them.
All three end up on your iPad and iOS picks the right one to execute. They are called "fat" binaries.

Also, I never said the binaries are incompatible. In fact, Apple's 64-bit CPU can faithfully execute 32-bit binaries. But the opposite is not true.

How similar or dissimilar the CPUs are is not important. The compiler guarantees the program generated will behave exactly the same regardless. (Now, compilers aren't always perfect but they are very good these days... they differ mainly in terms of support for new language features, but keep in mind Apple would keep the same compiler so that wouldn't be any different either.)

 

[poe diddley]

ARM Macs better come soon because we need cheaper MacBook Airs that are around $500-$700. Broadwell-U CPUs from Intel are around $250-$400, and that's not going to cut it for a $500 Macbook Air price point. The CPUs need to be around $50-$100 to hit that price. We could also use a $300 Mac Mini as a small office server, in which an ARM cpu would work well.

intel should be scared. Apple is already at speed parity for the low-end CPUs, and by the time the A10x rolls around, they'll be as fast as Intel's top CPUs.

Apple's ARM A8x cpus are as in the same ballpark speeds as any 10-watt Broadwell CPU. And, given a higher power budget, they could easily go 2-3x faster, putting them in ludicrous speeds. A fully configured 10-core version for a Mac Mini server could even be 10x faster, and wouldn't cost any more than the A8x if they took out the GPU.

Just ship ARM, and have all the vendors just recompile their OS X apps for ARM. No one needs Windows compatibility (I don't know any Mac owner that uses Windows) and the .25% of Mac users that do can go buy an Intel Mac.

You've completely lost your mind if you think they will suddenly make them cheaper if they switch to ARM processors.

 

[b34g]

I would say that for 'recompiles', emulation technology is a lot better now and hardware is much faster than it was in past times. So, if you look at how Google has an arm emulator for android studio or how apple already has an ios simulator for xcode, in theory, apple could provide an arm OSX emulator for xcode on x86, that would allow app developers to compile apps to arm, most should work o.k. Apple has a lot more power now to pressure developers, with the Mac App Store.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

You keep posting that non-sequitur, because you know I'm right.

No, based on your approaches to this conversation though, I simply think you chose a good name to use on this site. You just act like you know more about this than others (unqualified of course). This thread is full of counterpoints to what YOU keep saying. But you're locked in on a singular point of view. That's fine. I hope Apple makes you a ARM-based Mac. If so, I hope you enjoy it. I'm trying to figure out how I could possibly enjoy it too. To that, you're not helping.

 

[Santabean2000]

It seems Windows compatibility is a big deal for a lot of folks here (and many others too probably). But perhaps you're forgetting that Microsoft has already flirted with ARM before in their Windows world.

With their all-in-one approach, I think it's just a matter of time before we see full-blown version windows on ARM.

 

[joema2]

...Apple has a lot more influence now with regards to mac app development, than they did before. Apple would pressure them to recompile....

Whatever leverage Apple has with independent developers, it has not resulted in timely porting of various best-in-class OS X utilities. If Apple switches (for the 3rd time) to a different CPU, you can probably kiss those apps goodbye.

For example the best file/folder comparison utility (by far) is Scooter Software's Beyond Compare: http://www.scootersoftware.com/

After years of waiting, it was just recently ported to OS X. If Apple drops x86, say goodbye to utilities like this.

Another example is the best desktop space management tool: JAM Software's TreeSize Pro: http://www.jam-software.com/treesize/ It is far better than any other currently available tool on OS X -- but it hasn't been ported from Windows yet. So if Apple's "pressure" can't even achieve this after years of waiting, how can they ever convince the entire OS X development community to (once again) port their apps to yet another CPU?

 

[nutjob]

OK. Let's try to buy this belief. Enlighten us on why Windows RT didn't roar. Same basic concept with an OS used by more than 90% of the world's PCs. Why didn't all of the Windows developers just "easily recompile" for RT and make it perhaps more successful than Windows on Intel now?

I'm not trying to make this an OS X vs. Windows debate- just pointing out that there is a reasonable proxy of taking a popular OS that runs on Intel and porting it to run on ARM. Why didn't all that "simply recompile" occur? Why didn't it succeed vs. Windows on Intel? There's so much more money to be made on the Windows side because the market is so much larger than OS X. Yet, even with so much more potential, why didn't all these perceived benefits of dumping Intel for ARM yield?

Why don't you understand the difference between changing processors and changing APIs? Do you understand that recompiling for a different processor is not the same as porting software to a different OS or API?

Do you understand that the market success of a system has nothing to do with compiling for a different architecture?

 

[iSee]

Yes, and its the Intel CPU that made the Mac as popular as it is today, remove that and we're back to the PPC days where there was great difficulty attracting developers, software and getting chipsets updated and rolled and in quantity.

As a software developer who was active in developing Mac and Windows software before, during and after the PPC days, the PPC architecture was NOT a significant factor into the decision on whether or not to support Macs. (And in the old days, we had a base of hand-optimized assembly code for things that absolutely had to run as fast as possible.)
The biggest issue, by far, was the very different APIs that Mac OS provided vs. what Windows provided. This affected us directly and in terms of finding third-party libraries to use.

This would not be a factor if Apple switches from Intel to ARM.

(Not addressing your point about chipsets since I have no experience there. But considering your thoughts on the software side of it, I do have to wonder if you know what you are talking about there.)

 

[b34g]

I would say this is the most unreliable rumor we have seen from that Chinese company. Apple would have to fight 3 uphill battles if they go with ARM-based Macs:

- competing with Intel (the next Iris Pro will be light years ahead of any ARM-based GPU)

- rewriting OS X (causing significant delays to their annual release)

- convincing all devs, game companies, and Adobe to rewrite all their OS X software. The average consumer will be scratching their heads as to why they can't install their old games on their new mac.

Apple already has an OS X port for ARM, remember, they based ios off of it. Similarly, Apple already had an OS X port for Intel, when they were on PPC.

For GPUs, Apple can still partner with Nvidia or AMD. Not that many native games are available for OS X, anyway, most just use a wrapper based off of wine. But gaming, was never Apple's target market, in any case. Apple has a lot more power with devs now thanks to the Mac App Store, and Adobe is moving into the cloud anyway with CC, so they can still develop some type of interface for Mac to work with it, from a front-end perspective.

 

[LordVic]

Apple already has an OS X port for ARM, remember, they based ios off of it. Similarly, Apple already had an OS X port for Intel, when they were on PPC.

For GPUs, Apple can still partner with Nvidia or AMD. Not that many native games are available for OS X, anyway, most just use a wrapper based off of wine. But gaming, was never Apple's target market, in any case. Apple has a lot more power with devs now thanks to the Mac App Store, and Adobe is moving into the cloud anyway with CC, so they can still develop some type of interface for Mac to work with it, from a front-end perspective.

you still run into the enterprise issue with software and support, mainly things that are windows based. not sure how they would go around that.

 

[maflynn]

And it is the ARM chip that makes Apple what it is today.

ARM is a FAR more popular CPU throughout the world than x86, with many more developers.

No, not the Arm, but the iPhone and iPad.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Do you understand that recompiling for a different processor is not the same as porting software to a different OS or API?

Again, I hope Apple builds you an ARM-based Mac. And I hope you enjoy it.

And again, I'm in here trying to figure out how I could enjoy it.

 

[nutjob]

No, based on your approaches to this conversation though, I simply think you chose a good name to use on this site. You just act like you know more about this than others (unqualified of course). This thread is full of counterpoints to what YOU keep saying. But you're locked in on a singular point of view. That's fine. I hope Apple makes you a ARM-based Mac. If so, I hope you enjoy it.

I'm "locked" into it because it's the truth. I act like I know more than others because I do know more than others. I've been developing software and systems for 30 years. Who cares how many counterpoints there are here. The truth isn't a democracy.

Everything you say illustrates that you have not the first clue of what you're talking about on this subject. Your argument, which is based on a non-sequitur and is increasingly ad-hominem (look it up if you don't understand what it means) reflects your lack of understanding.

 

[iSee]

OK. Let's try to buy this belief. Enlighten us on why Windows RT didn't roar. Same basic concept with an OS used by more than 90% of the world's PCs. Why didn't all of the Windows developers just "easily recompile" for RT and make it perhaps more successful than Windows on Intel now?

I'm not trying to make this an OS X vs. Windows debate- just pointing out that there is a reasonable proxy of taking a popular OS that runs on Intel and porting it to run on ARM. Why didn't all that "simply recompile" occur? Why didn't it succeed vs. Windows on Intel? There's so much more money to be made on the Windows side because the market is so much larger than OS X. Yet, even with so much more potential, why didn't all these perceived benefits of dumping Intel for ARM yield?

Windows RT had its own set of APIs. It was all-new and any software that wanted to run on a Windows RT device *had* to use it. So, essentially, MS forced app developers to start from almost zero to support Windows RT. (Well, not entirely -- a lot of stuff was identical or very similar to existing APIs. But huge amounts of things changed. Also, the UI system was completely different.

Apple doesn't have to go the route that MS did -- attaching a new and incompatible app environment to the switch to ARM. They could, but they don't have to.

 

[nutjob]

Again, I hope Apple builds you an ARM-based Mac. And I hope you enjoy it.

Again, I'm not interested in any Apple laptop, including an ARM laptop, as I said. Why do you keep repeating the same irrelevant thing, even after I respond to it? Is it because you have no valid, on point, argument whatsoever?

 

[Little Boy Blue]

Use multiples of iPad processors. Who remembers Atari Transputers?

 

[LordVic]

It seems Windows compatibility is a big deal for a lot of folks here (and many others too probably). But perhaps you're forgetting that Microsoft has already flirted with ARM before in their Windows world.

With their all-in-one approach, I think it's just a matter of time before we see full-blown version windows on ARM.

its not windows itself that is the concern. it's the programs on top of it.

Sure, move to arm CPU could see Windows RT still usable. But you'd be limited to windows 8.x application from their app store.

The benefit of windows, especially on x86 hardware is the decades of programs. Its why Windows RT for the most part has been a failure. you would lose this by moving to Arm. There is a wild world in the Windows side of things of Millions of Windows based programs that would be lost to you if you went Arm.Most notably, the majority of the corporate world

 

[flur]

It seems Windows compatibility is a big deal for a lot of folks here (and many others too probably). But perhaps you're forgetting that Microsoft has already flirted with ARM before in their Windows world.

With their all-in-one approach, I think it's just a matter of time before we see full-blown version windows on ARM.

That's speculative at best. Your choice of verb, "flirted," is exactly right. But that flirtation never turned into a serious commitment, and there are reasons for that. Consumers didn't warm to the idea of paying for a whole computer but getting a gimpy, handicapped one that couldn't run all the apps they were used to.

Apple could certainly try the same, and maybe it will work out better for them. I'm not optimistic.

 

[b34g]

Whatever leverage Apple has with independent developers, it has not resulted in timely porting of various best-in-class OS X utilities. If Apple switches (for the 3rd time) to a different CPU, you can probably kiss those apps goodbye.

For example the best file/folder comparison utility (by far) is Scooter Software's Beyond Compare: http://www.scootersoftware.com/

After years of waiting, it was just recently ported to OS X. If Apple drops x86, say goodbye to utilities like this.

Another example is the best desktop space management tool: JAM Software's TreeSize Pro: http://www.jam-software.com/treesize/ It is far better than any other currently available tool on OS X -- but it hasn't been ported from Windows yet. So if Apple's "pressure" can't even achieve this after years of waiting, how can they ever convince the entire OS X development community to (once again) port their apps to yet another CPU?

http://www.scootersoftware.com/vbul...pment-Language-Framework-Used-for-Mac-Version

I noticed that they say on their forum that they're transitioning to QT, and from what I understand their linux port is already partially based on QT. QT is a cross-platform C++ framework, that already runs on arm. So, it will actually be quite easy for them to port to ARM, just a recompile. A lot of cross-platform desktop apps make use of QT, just an example.

 

[joema2]

I would say that for 'recompiles', emulation technology is a lot better now and hardware is much faster than it was in past times...apple already has an ios simulator for xcode...

This actually illustrates why it would be difficult. The xcode iOS simulator runs iOS apps on OS X *far* slower than the native iOS CPU. This is despite the Mac CPU being much faster than any mobile device.

So if simulation runs much slower on a faster CPU, how much slower would it run an x86 app on a similarly-performing ARM CPU?

Apple's previous Rosetta emulation often had a 2x performance hit: http://barefeats.com/rosetta.html

If Apple drops x86, we can expect likewise on an ARM Mac.