Intel Expecting Apple to Transition to Custom ARM-Based Chips Starting in 2020

[cube]

You should consider that when Apple went from PPC to x86, they mentioned that they’d been running OSX on both PPC and x86 the whole time. Why might this matter? Because maybe they learned something from that transition, and that they may have a solution to the switch that is better than Rosetta. Heck, MS already has WOA, which can run x86 programs. Performance isn’t great, but what MS has done is on relatively slow hardware. If Apple has a much more powerful version of their own chip in the wings, maybe the performance hit to run legacy code will be far more bearable.

Forget Windows games.

 

[Falhófnir]

Suspicious. Run A12X a sustained burn test, see how it goes. A-series is not a performance chip to begin with.

Bear in mind it's a passively cooled chip with a 7.5W TDP. In a larger laptop form factor we could have active cooling and a TDP of up to 45W!

 

[xflashx]

I’m totally fine with the transition to Arm chips but as soon as they’ll decide to lock down macOS like they do with iOS, I’m out. I want to have the freedom to install 3rd party apps, to switch back to a previous MacOS when there are problems with the latest version or to install another OS (e.g. an arm based version of Linux), so when Apple drops support for the device I still can use it for lighter tasks. Unfortunately I believe they’ll completely lock down macOS, which might be fine for iOS devices, but is a complete no-go for a PC imo...

 

[citysnaps]

Well-I guess that settles it. Apple was nice for decade and a half, but an ARM will never be an i7.

And an Apple mobile phone will never stand up to those by Motorola, Ericsson, and Nokia.

 

[swingerofbirch]

This is not a prediction but a hunch I've had for a while.

The new Mac Pro has taken an unusually long time to be announced and shipped.

Perhaps rather than starting with MacBooks and iMacs as in the Intel transition, they're starting with the Mac Pro.

The ARM chip on its own wouldn't compete with high end Intel processors (unless they have one in their labs they've been working on that beats out what we've so far seen), but many of them combined might do something interesting. All they've hinted is that the new design is modular, which doesn't really tell you much except that something is different. Because every Mac Pro and PowerMac has been modular to some extent. They could have shipped an updated tower with Intel processors long ago if they had wanted to.

Plus I'm not sure if Apple wants to just build a Mac version of a PC tower. They like to be different (a la the 2013 Mac Pro). Institutionally they're a bit more like Nintendo, which makes more interesting rather than conventional products. The iMac Pro seems like it is Apple's high end workstation. Maybe the Mac Pro will do something more interesting—maybe different modular parts each have their own ARM chips. Why would that be useful? I don't know.

Either they're doing something very interesting, or they're again just not that good at putting out products in a timely manner. The latter is a distinct possibility.

 

[turbineseaplane]

I’m totally fine with the transition to Arm chips but as soon as they’ll decide to lock down macOS like they do with iOS, I’m out.

That's honestly my greater concern also...

The #1 thing I love about my Mac over my iOS devices is the immense flexibility in what I'm able to do with it, in a way I want to do it, etc

 

[Reindeer_Games]

Forget Windows games.

I find it hard for you to understand that native Windows is what made Apple machines sell in droves, and then you spit in the face of those that made the company what it is today. Which is it?

 

[Mick-Mac]

Having lived through the Motorola to Intel migration I have some observations. First off, a *lot* of the software I owned became abandoned shortly afterwards as (especially small) developers couldn't/wouldn't justify the burden of rewriting all their software. For those that could I ended up having the privilege of rebuying, at full price, every software package I owned and for those that couldn't I ended up having the privilege of seeking out and buying, at full price, alternative software (with the accompanying aggravation of converting over to it). It was a monumental disruption and from memory all the software upgrades/purchases alone cost more than the new machine. The one silver lining was that the (virtualized) PC software that I needed to run could now be done in a much faster and straightforward manner because the CPU was Intel.

So here we go again, only this time my virtualized capabilities will suffer...

 

[bevel]

No, of course not. Someone might come out with an emulator, like the old Virtual PC, but it won’t run Intel code natively.

I think you’ve forgotten what the “V” in “VM” stands for. You can emulate an Intel (or any other kind of) CPU on a different processor architecture, but you can’t virtualize it.

But virtualization is not specific to Intel chips ARM supports virtualization (https://genode.org/documentation/articles/arm_virtualization)

There is nothing to stop Apple's Ax chips from virtualising Windows and Linux compiled for ARM the same way we are currently able to with Intel.

Coupling to an instruction set is not the way modern OSes are written these days. It's much less of a serious move to jump chipset these days. We're not going to go back to the dark old days of PPC

 

[TComm]

I am not sure if it is a good idea. Apple will be isolated with very overpriced products. That why Surface is cheap and “good enough”.

 

[Mac Heretic]

If one is able to use previous/legacy OS X versions with VirtualBox/WMWare Fusion/Parallels-type integration, this is not a dead end. Full size future ARM should be powerful enough and if the device has enough RAM, dual OS is not a problem at all. Apple just needs to include an open comptability/emulation layer for CPU and GPU instruction set. If there is a need to re-purchase apps and/or go for "modern" monthly rental apps route, then it will be too much of a change for me.

New Apple machines and new Mac OS lack support for old and even not-so-old apps already, and it is a mess if one wants to buy new Macs and keep a properly balanced and deep professional software catalog and skills alive. Nowadays I recognize a pro if he uses an older Mac, not the newest.

 

[macbeta]

My only concern with this is will this change still allow us to run Boot Camp and Parallels Desktop on ARM based Macs?

Nope, windows for ARM is gimped and does not run 'Normal' windows apps. Windows Apps too need to be rewritten for the ARM architecture.

 

[cycomiko]

"more powerful"

...

 

[turbineseaplane]

Guys - I think we are applying our own nerd needs/desires for occasional (or frequent) Windows usage onto the greater market in a way that isn't true.

Literally every single "normal" Mac owner/user I know left Windows in the rear view mirror YEARS ago.

I don't think the mainstream Mac users give a lick about virtualizing or BootCamping Windows.
Apple knows this and is doing their own thing - smartly I think.

 

[tjedora]

This is not a prediction but a hunch I've had for a while.

The new Mac Pro has taken an unusually long time to be announced and shipped.

Perhaps rather than starting with MacBooks and iMacs as in the Intel transition, they're starting with the Mac Pro.

The ARM chip on its own wouldn't compete with high end Intel processors (unless they have one in their labs they've been working on that beats out what we've so far seen), but many of them combined might do something interesting. All they've hinted is that the new design is modular, which doesn't really tell you much except that something is different. Because every Mac Pro and PowerMac has been modular to some extent. They could have shipped an updated tower with Intel processors long ago if they had wanted to.

Plus I'm not sure if Apple wants to just build a Mac version of a PC tower. They like to be different (a la the 2013 Mac Pro). Institutionally they're a bit more like Nintendo, which makes more interesting rather than conventional products. The iMac Pro seems like it is Apple's high end workstation. Maybe the Mac Pro will do something more interesting—maybe different modular parts each have their own ARM chips. Why would that be useful? I don't know.

Either they're doing something very interesting, or they're again just not that good at putting out products in a timely manner. The latter is a distinct possibility.

They know their MacPro audience and they know what applications they are using. Locking out most of those application by switching architecture would be a huge middle-finger to said audience. So they either use some black magic to make it work smoothly or they will stick with Intel.

 

[JordanNZ]

Apps submitted to the Mac App Store have been submitted using bitcode for a while now..

https://www.google.co.nz/amp/s/then...-wwdc-that-nobodys-talking-about-bitcode/amp/

Having lived through the Motorola to Intel migration I have some observations. First off, a *lot* of the software I owned became abandoned shortly afterwards as (especially small) developers couldn't/wouldn't justify the burden of rewriting all their software. For those that could I ended up having the privilege of rebuying, at full price, every software package I owned and for those that couldn't I ended up having the privilege of seeking out and buying, at full price, alternative software (with the accompanying aggravation of converting over to it). It was a monumental disruption and from memory all the software upgrades/purchases alone cost more than the new machine. The one silver lining was that the (virtualized) PC software that I needed to run could now be done in a much faster and straightforward manner because the CPU was Intel.

So here we go again, only this time my virtualized capabilities will suffer...

 

[tjedora]

Guys - I think we are applying our own nerd needs/desires for occasional (or frequent) Windows usage onto the greater market in a way that isn't true.

Literally every single "normal" Mac owner/user I know left Windows in the rear view mirror YEARS ago.

I don't think the mainstream Mac users give a lick about virtualizing or BootCamping Windows.
Apple knows this and is doing their own thing - smartly I think.

Yeah - the mainstream Mac user (Macbook Air) would be fine with the transition as most Apple apps will still work.

 

[Foxglove9]

Looking forward to the new Macs, bring it on!

 

[Freida]

I like this but I know it will be a mess for few years. So probably not a bad idea to buy something and wait for them to bridge it. Probably 2019 products will be the best for next few years

 

[Jago]

This will be a disaster. The virtual machines that I run are going to crawl under any kind of emulator that Apple produces, and I'm not all that sure they'll even throw us that bone. Apple has been giving the Mac short shrift for years now and this puts the final nail in the coffin.

As someone running virtualization on top of MacOS, you are a niche within a niche Apple definately doesn't care about.

 

[Reindeer_Games]

And an Apple mobile phone will never stand up to those by Motorola, Ericsson, and Nokia.

Who?....oh yeah I had a Nokia when Cricket came out. Sent my first text on one. Again, what does that have to do with this thread. Stay on topic please-thank you.

 

[Guitar_Trance]

Here comes Apple with the pre-Jobs proprietary crap. There goes ME back to Windows and building cheap, faster, better computers! I had enough of Apple's proprietary crap back in the 90's before Mr. Jobs had the good sense to bring Apple into the REAL world... putting the Mac on the Intel platform being one sensible [should have been a no-brainer] long overdue change.

Even though I love the Mac OS and iPhones/iPads, and I cannot stand Windows in comparison, I've TRULY had enough of Apple's nonsense since Mr. Jobs' passing. It has nothing to do with Steve Jobs... it has everything to do with Apple's increasingly LOSER business model.

Going proprietary once again, in my opinion, is the worst decision Apple has made since the 90's when they almost went belly-up for their nonsensical business decisions/practices.

A business associate built a Hackintosh just to see how it would run the Mac OS compared to a similar offering from Apple... price consciousness and performance-for-the-money being the most important reason for the experiment. For half the cost of a similar iMac he's getting almost triple the performance in certain applications, and getting HIS choice of hardware.

Apple is a VERY expensive choice, you get little or no choice with your supposed "choice", and now they're going to pseudo-isolate themselves from the rest of the computing world on top of it all?

Now, on top of it all the software I've paid thousands for I may have to replace and start over? No way!

At some point I have to let go of the niceties of the Mac OS, start thinking cost effectiveness, start thinking logical choice, and stop allowing Apple to back me into a corner because of a few little minor features Windows doesn't have. But if Apple does in fact go to a system/product-wide proprietary CHIP, especially for their Mac products, I am sadly out-of-here!

 

[Heineken]

Guys - I think we are applying our own nerd needs/desires for occasional (or frequent) Windows usage onto the greater market in a way that isn't true.

Literally every single "normal" Mac owner/user I know left Windows in the rear view mirror YEARS ago.

I don't think the mainstream Mac users give a lick about virtualizing or BootCamping Windows.
Apple knows this and is doing their own thing - smartly I think.

I think that too. If anything Apple should do the complete opposite of what people whine and moan about here and Apple will be fine.

 

[ke-iron]

Well-I guess that settles it. Apple was nice for decade and a half, but an ARM will never be an i7.

I think an ARM in a Mac will do very well. We’re not talking about the same chip they put in their iPhone and iPad. This chip will obviously be bigger, more powerful and well suited for the Mac.

 

[ph001bi]

Next you'll say that there are no FM chips in iPhones! HAHA! Did Tim Cook write this FAKE NEWS? This will be the end of "computers" for Apple as we know it if true. This is actually worse than the PowerPC Alliance, where 2 of the 3 companies involved are completely out of the personal computer business if not out of half or more of their businesses at the time! Apple even ran Motorola out of the cell phone biz too just to add insult to injury. When will people learn from mistakes?

It's not about whether Mac OS is better or not. Sure A-chips could run Windows software, but none of it is really available for ARM. It's about compatibility in the business and education sectors, and at least one if not both of these will not buy into the, "Well it works on iPhone so it's good for us strategy." Only a moron could come up with this plan. It's been done before and did NOT WORK! Didn't anybody learn anything? Even Steve Jobs eventually gave up on the MHz Myth BS. Not only is it not true, but no one will believe it even if it is!

Is Tim Cook really poised to start doing Mac vs. PC commercials and live bake-offs? I think not. The whole RISC phenomenon, even by Steve Jobs own admission was a failure! I never thought I'd say this, but these bean counters like Tim Cook might end my lifelong interest in Apple Macs and iPhones. If iPhones were so much faster than Android, why were sales down for several years and market share lost?

How did you manage to write a three paragraphs long post without a single factual statement?
That's quite impressive.

 

[apolloa]

Cool, bye bye Mac.. nice knowing you.