I think its going to be the opposite, Apple moving to lock down macOS more then opening up iOS.
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.
Intel Expecting Apple to Transition to Custom ARM-Based Chips Starting in 2020
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I guess that's the end of MacBook Pros for developers. We have at least 40,000 where I work, but without access to Docker or VMWare, they would be useless. Perhaps MBP will stick with Intel.
Well, for one thing, the eMac was sold exclusively to schools for most of it's production period. Schools told Apple they didn't want the iMac G4, so Apple built the eMac. (The e was for education)
Why Windows on Mac? Because many people have to use both, to make a living? Small business owners can currently buy 1 computer, a Mac, and use Windows apps when needed for that one task / program that isn't available on Mac. (Industry specific programs, certain chemical modeling apps, a version of Quickbooks that works consistently with their CPAs version where the Mac version is hit or miss at best, etc)
A complete move to ARM-only Macs would make them choose between buying two computers to get the same functionality as before, or just switch to Windows. Guess what most small business owners will more likely do?
It's great that YOU don't need Windows. You are not all of Apple Mac using customers. Apple used to know this. I hope they still do?
People have different needs, and one size doesn't fit all.
Or just stop paying for macs, which is what I did.
Same here, and I think changing platforms is a mistake, but at this point I left the ecosystem so it doesn't really impact me much ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Historically, after Apple jumps to a new cpu platform, there are no further updates on the old cpu platform. While I'd like to think different, we are talking about Apple. Profits are made by an economy of scale. Shifting 1/2 of the desktop platform makes no sense from a financial or manufacturing perspective.
I think hackintosh might be going away anyway once t2 (or successor) security chip are in the entire macOS supported line. That will be several more years, as the current iMac (released 2017, I believe) still does not have one.
Apple makes a few chips with a small roadmap.
Intel makes a large number of chips with multiple roadmaps.
As someone that works in the industry, I think you confuse products with chips.
Intel makes products with detailed data sheets and characterization information and support so that numbers of people can use their chips.
Apple makes chips that they use internally and never need to publish errata, etc.
Very different.
As a developer, this sums up my concerns as well. Well said.
Parallels is written and compiled for Intel cpu's. So unless Parallels makes a version for the new ARM processor it will not work.
And every small business owner I work with will switch (often back) to Windows. I can't see any of my customers buying two computers to accomplish what they currently can with one.
At what point does Apple hit the point of diminishing returns? At what point do sales drop past what minor savings they may see from switching from Intel makes any financial sense? At what point does the cost of maintaining both lines match the sales kept?
Not saying you're wrong, you're likely right. Apple will likely tell a very large number of it's remaining Mac customers to f-off. And back to Windows they'll go.
I'd just like to think that one of the richest companies on Earth could afford to make computers loyal customers actually want to buy?
If they can't, maybe Tim should get a job at Pepsi?
Very good point indeed. That simple statement sums up pretty eloquently what feels like wrong with Apple these days
Newsflash: Apple have already announced that - ARM or not - the next version of MacOS won't run 32 bit apps. Like it or not, a cull is coming, and quite a lot of those apps that aren't being actively developed are already dead software walking. Meanwhile, for a huge tranche of software written in C/ObjC/Swift and using Apple frameworks for graphics/vector processing etc. "porting to ARM" will consist of ticking the ARM box in Xcode, re-compiling and doing a bit of testing (oh, wait, its 2019 so forget the testing...) - *nix stuff (Apache, python etc.) is mostly platform-independent C/C++ (as per the Unix tradition) plus they are already supported on both ARM Linux/BSD and x86 MacOS so "porting" shouldn't be a big deal c.f. the laundry list of obscure platforms that they already support.
Newsflash 2: Safari for iOS runs Javascript. Chrome for Android runs Javascript. The Raspberry Pi runs Javascript. Javascript runs fine on ARM.
- developing for MacOS
- developing for iOS (already a big seller and developing on an ARM will make testing/debugging easier)
- developing for Android (ditto the above)
- developing for Unix/Web/Scripting (Apache, Ngenix, node.js, mysql, mongodb, python etc. all work on ARM and MacOS/ARM 'ports' are available).
...in fact, pretty much everything short of developing for Windows (which is hardly the strongest reason for developing on a Mac) or testing Mac apps on an Intel Mac* (no reason that you won't be able to build them - and if a developer doesn't
have facilities for testing on different hardware configurations then they're not a serious caller).
Bottom line is, the days of application developers needing to worry about processor architecture are rapidly receding.
There's no doubt that not being able to dual-boot/virtualise x86 Windows and Linux will be a drawback, at least in the short term, and, yes, Apple could mess it up by trying to force the transition by abandoning Intel product lines too quickly. 'Locking down' Mac OS and Mac hardware too much would also be a problem (e.g. so the Linux community weren't able to get ARM Linux running on a Mac). But let's not assume the glass is half empty until we at least know that there is a glass!
* And that's assuming that Intel/AMD will block Apple from doing x86/amd64 emulation (which is a solved problem apart from legal issues) - I wouldn't bet against Apple's legal team (esp. as Microsoft is already doing x86 emulation so they'll be Apple's frenemy on that) and Intel and AMD would probably quite like to keep selling their other products in a post-x86 world. Its not as if Apple is the only company sniffing around ARM as an Intel replacement.
A few things:
MacOS porting to ARM is a non-issue.
MacOS is BSD and Apple has ported MacOS to ARM already.
iOS s stripped down MacOS with a different GUI. Both are BSD under the GUI.
I have seen this rumor, over and over and over again.
Tim Cook said that iOS devices and Macs are different ecosystem.
Just because there is a unified App Store does not mean they will unify processor.
Switching to ARM will eliminate all the MacBooks in my company.
We need VMWare running CentOS/RedHat on Intel. But that's not necessarily mainstream.
Making their own laptop and server class processor does not eliminate cost.
It shifts cost from buying cpus to sunk R&D costs.
The hurdles to start building a laptop and server class CPU family is not insurmountable.
The question is, does it make business sense?
I personally don't think so; but I don't run Apple.
We can discuss all day the various challenges, but there are no current technical challenges to Apple making a family of ARM CPUs to go into Macs that money can't solve.
Although I haven't seen the hiring that would be necessary to pull it off, there have been quite a few people that were put into the job market that Apple may have picked up. Those people would be from the Samsung ARM server group that was disbanded, Broadcom Server group that was let go about 2 years ago.
The rumors and speculation have appeared for multiple years.
First it was going to happen in 2016, then 2018, now 2020... Yawn.
They would get much more bang for the buck in savings if they built their own modem.
MacOS porting to ARM is a non-issue.
MacOS is BSD and Apple has ported MacOS to ARM already.
iOS s stripped down MacOS with a different GUI. Both are BSD under the GUI.
I have seen this rumor, over and over and over again.
Tim Cook said that iOS devices and Macs are different ecosystem.
Just because there is a unified App Store does not mean they will unify processor.
Switching to ARM will eliminate all the MacBooks in my company.
We need VMWare running CentOS/RedHat on Intel. But that's not necessarily mainstream.
Making their own laptop and server class processor does not eliminate cost.
It shifts cost from buying cpus to sunk R&D costs.
The hurdles to start building a laptop and server class CPU family is not insurmountable.
The question is, does it make business sense?
I personally don't think so; but I don't run Apple.
We can discuss all day the various challenges, but there are no current technical challenges to Apple making a family of ARM CPUs to go into Macs that money can't solve.
Although I haven't seen the hiring that would be necessary to pull it off, there have been quite a few people that were put into the job market that Apple may have picked up. Those people would be from the Samsung ARM server group that was disbanded, Broadcom Server group that was let go about 2 years ago.
The rumors and speculation have appeared for multiple years.
First it was going to happen in 2016, then 2018, now 2020... Yawn.
They would get much more bang for the buck in savings if they built their own modem.
Windows runs on ARM today, and have been for more than a year. The latest model being launched is a Lenovo.
https://www.zdnet.com/article/windo...hows-off-always-connected-2-in-1-in-new-yoga/
The device can run ARM64 Apps natively (thanks to an ARM64 compile flag in Visual Studio), they can run any of the UWP applications in the Windows store as those are processor agnostic, they can runs X86 applications under emulation, but they can't emulate X64 yet.
I suspect Apple dropping 32 bits Applications from next year and asking developers to use Xcode for compiling is one way of building processor agnostic apps which will run on the new ARM powered Macs and the older X86 powered ones.
The requirements to use Xcode, then 64 bits only code have been introduced discretely while they are busy building the new Interface tool.
Meanwhile their processors are getting more powerful quicker than Intel's are. All the pieces are coming together nicely.
The A12X in the iPad Pro is a beast, and it's a tablet processor, we can only assume what a processor designed for a laptop or a desktop could be capable of.
If they repeat what they've done with the PowerPC transition, it will be extremely smooth, first the Macbook in March 2020 then Mac Mini and iMac in October 2020, Macbook Pro in june 2021, Imac Pro and Mac Pro in October 2021.
I actually think that the transition will be smoother a transition, as the Apps developed using Xcode will be processor agnostic from the get go so no need for fat binaries or Rosetta emulation.
Regarding people needing to dual boot, they could dual boot to Windows on ARM or use virtualisation like I am doing today. I am using a W10 desktop on my Mac under Citrix VDI, and there is no reason why it wouldn't work with an ARM powered Macbook Pro.
Parallels uses the virtualization hardware found on the intel CPUs, the only option AFAIK know is emulation which is significantly slower.
Perhaps it is an USA thing but I have never seen Macs used for any use inside any company at any moment of time. The only exception being of course the sound/video/image/DTP/similar stations and recently iOS developing stations.
Apple doesnt need chips that work for numerous computer manufacturers. It needs chips that work for apple.
And Apple does have better designers than Intel.
Apple's loss is HP's gain. The overall loss will be insignificant to Apple's bottom line and market share, while Intel is sure to take a greater hit. Apples pricing with Intel is based on volume of CPU's and chip sets and as it drops, profit margins start to erode. While the switch could happen on a production line basis, I expect it to happen rather quickly, delivering blazing performance, better battery life, an overall improved end-user experience, and the usual audience of critics.
Yeah, unless Apple's chips are fully x86 instruction set compatible (i.e. the way AMD's chips are) this will be a fustercluck. Unfortunately the ability to run Windows-only software at close-to-native-speeds in a VM, or native speeds via. BootCamp, is an absolute necessity to a lot of Mac users. It allows people who want a Mac but have to use Windows-only software to do so with extremely few downsides.
Those of us who remember Windows "emulation" software in the PPC days will tell you it's almost never a viable solutions (far too slow).
Now, if the Apple chips are x86 compatible, that's another story altogether. It's always great to have competition, and a third chip competitor to Intel and AMD would be brilliant and hopefully push the entire industry towards greater innovations in terms of power-consumption and speed. But I'll believe that when I see it, not before.
As I already said in an earlier post in this thread: No one (including Apple) is allowed to make chips x86 compatible because of Intel's copyrights. Only AMD is allowed to do that.
Apple does not build the Mac to run Windows, that’s a fact. I highly doubt that Apple cares if a small business owner can’t run Windows. Honesty, Apple could disable bootcamp with a simple firmware update to the T2 chip if they chose to do so. Apple made Macinstosh computers for over 20 years that couldn’t run Windows and the Mac survived, people posting here seem to forget that. Good grief, I remember Mac users booing at Bill Gates when they bundled Internet Explorer with the Mac now people are pissed that they can’t run Windows on the Mac. If Apple wants to switch to ARM they will do it, they don’t care if they lose people. Look how many pro users they lost with FCPX, or the Mac Pro. Apple does what Apple wants. They always have and that most likely will stay the same.
Tim Cook doesn't know how to use macOS. He is a tablet guy. Jobs would never have allowed this to happen. He was probably too sick in 2011 to know about this issue with the 2011 MBA.
There's nothing like feeling electricity on your wrists as you try to work on the laptop. Keeps you on your toes. Literally. This must be a feature to keep Apple engineers from falling asleep at work.
I'm curious what this would mean for steam whether they'd bother porting the client to macos-ARM or not, and what this means for mac gaming in the future. I really don't see how mac desktops would be competitive in this future unless the new systems either drastically outperform intel offerings in some manner, or if Apple is able to release pretty inexpensive systems. For mobile I suspect this means much, much better battery life.
I'm also not sure how big an impact it will be to intel. Remember, even if Apple migrates fully to A series for their own devices, this won't impact the rest of the industry.
Apple does not sell their CPU's to 3rd parties. That means if Apple goes ARM, they'll likely be theonly ones for the foreseeable future. HP, Dell, Microsoft, home brew/built are not going to get access to the A series CPU's. they will stay intel.
Apple would essentially be putting themselves back into the position they were during the PPC days, where they stood alone on their platform.
would there be a hit to Intel's bottom line to lose teh Apple contract? sure. But we're not talking about the bulk of their business. Apple is still fairly small customer of Intel.
in 2018, Apple was only 6.9% of the worlds PC Market share. That means if Apple were 100% A series on their computers, Intel would still have the remainder of their ~94% market.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/267018/global-market-share-held-by-pc-vendors/
sometimes here on MacRumours, we have a tendancy of overstating Apple's position in the computer industry due to their large position in the phone industry. Apple has had a tremendous uphill climb and has not seen massive penetration into the PC industry. at their highest, they were still only selling about 10% of the prebuilt machines out there (not even including home brew since the numbers for these are impossible to find)
edit; just additional data
By Q3 2018, Apple was down to 7% of the quarters computer sales. roughly 4.7million units sold of prebuilt computers. if Apple left, this would bring the quarter sales for that quarter down to 60million units instead of 64.7. This is also ONLY prebuilt computer systems, and not custom built machines where the CPU's were purchased independantly. Nor does it include servers, server farms or other core infrastructure use cases that aren't consumer PC's.
Suffice to say. Apple is really not a large customer of intel's overall business. also probably why intel Laughs off Apple when they make demands from them
Last edited: