We don't really know the whole story on what this is going to mean yet. So it's probably best to take the wait-and-see approach first.
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.
Kuo: Apple to Launch Several Macs With Arm-Based Processors in 2021, USB4 Support Coming to Macs in 2022
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
This is actually not something I'm looking forward to. Not being able to dual boot Windows is a huge inconvenience.
I do. This will be the end of the Mac Desktop. The people that think this is great weren't around for that. They also don't have a flippin' clue as to how software development cycle actually works.
10.6 hung around for nearly 5 years - and there was a REASON that it stayed around. And here is a hint apologists - it wasn't because we weren't "willing to learn new software". It was because "I gotta get work done." Example - all of my 3d art software went from Multi-threaded PowerPC to Single Threaded X86. It was another TWO versions before I was back to what I had with 10.6 - which was WHY I stayed with 10.6 until the release of 10.10.
Version 1.0 software running on version 1.0 hardware.
What could possibly go wrong?
Let's say for grins and giggles an ARM laptop launches on 1 Jan 2021 (just to make the math easier).
None of your desktop apps are running on that laptop in 2021 (Good news is that you will be able to run Candy Crush natively.)
Most software houses run on a 18 - 36 month development cycle. For grins and giggles ask that long-time OSX developer you know about how Apple screwed them with Carbon-64. I would suggest that you not be within arm's reach. Nothing like seeing P.T. Barnum telling a packed auditorium that all of the code developers had worked on for the past year can go straight into the garbage can. (BTW, that is precisely why it took as long as it did to get x86 apps for OSX.)
So you will be running your software in emulation for at least 18 months - probably closer to 36.
That 1st native version isn't going to have any new features. That will be in version 2 - which will be at least another 18 months after the release of version 1. And you WILL be buying them - no free upgrades for you.
Did I mention that you will also be running this version 1.0 software on version 1.0 hardware?
Of course, all of this is predicated on the belief that a TCO analysis will show that it would actually be worth porting the software. A lot of stuff didn't make the transition from PowerPC to X86.
Are YOU willing to bet your company on Tim Cook's plan for the future?
More interested in USB4, so 2022 is the year to look forward to.
This reminds me the early days of USB3 where many computers were still USB2 only, and the next refresh was going to be USB3. Don't want to be buying a new computer with only USB2 back then.
This reminds me the early days of USB3 where many computers were still USB2 only, and the next refresh was going to be USB3. Don't want to be buying a new computer with only USB2 back then.
I'm not so sure.
Apple sells 5 million Macs a quarter with Intel processors.
But the rest of the computer industry sells 60 million PCs a quarter with Intel processors.
Yes... Intel would have reduced revenue if Apple completely stopped buying their chips... but it's a little sensational to think that it would destroy the company.
Intel has a lot of problems... but I don't think Apple is one of them.
there are two separate issues going on here: porting to iOS and porting to ARM.
Arguably Adobe had it tougher than most because their UI is bespoke and they had to rethink the entire image editing/manipulation environment. For macOS though, going from intel to ARM is more of a recompile, fix edge- and corner-cases due to processor differences and compiler issues, and other things along those lines. Mac photoshop is still Mac photoshop. I don’t mean to minimize the effort, but it’s not a total rethink.
I think it’s great. And I was there for 68k->PowerPC, PowerPC->x86, x86->x86-64.
And I even designed PowerPC chips and designed the first x86-64 chip. And I still think it‘s great.
And it will still be the end of the Mac Desktop.
Weird. I’ll be able to run MacOS on it, and I’ll be able to run Mac software on it, and the software library will explode in volume due to compatibility with iOS.
68k->PowerPC : not the end
PowerPC->x86 : not the end
x86->x86-64. : not the end
But this one is the end?
Sure.
Can we dream that the 2021 ARM MacBook Air will be so much faster than a 2020 model, that even running software in emulation it will be 50% faster?
Apple tends to pick 3) Absolutely Nothing. The Mac Pro will sit there for another half a decade before enough people get upset and Apple kicks 8,1 out the door in 2025. Typing this on a 7,1 ... it took a decade to get here from 5,1. Mac Pro accounts for roughly 0.00000001% of Apple's profit; the figure is so small it's a rounding error.
The PowePC era didn't fail due to lack of being able to run Windows on Mac. It failed because IBM couldn't deliver on performance-per-watt.
iOS runs on ARM unless there is a version I am not familiar with, thus Office for iOS runs on ARM and with Catalyst getting the UX for macOS would not result in a year long refinement process hence Catalyst exists to permit developers universal apps. Adobe has always dragged its heels when it came to macOS transitioning from PPC to x86 and then porting it to iOS. But most have already transitioned to Affinity Photo and other comparable editors. The writing was on the wall for years, don’t like it move along. Adobe has made its library bloatware similar to previous versions of Office. I am glad these companies are being forced to optimize they software code as they were not motivated in the past.
I remember switch from PowerPC and yes that one was a bit of a pain. Everything you mentioned after was none issue.
It‘s going to be interesting to see how they will market a Arm-based Macs. For iPhone and iPad they really avoid showing any number of GHz and cores. Pro users will need to know the numbers even just to compare models and know what they’re buying.
To be honest, most of the apps I love are on iOS not macOS and they’re clearly working on making those possible fairly easily on macOS with universal apps.
Last edited:
Apple are already giving it unique processing capabilities with the afterburner cards.
Mac Pro specific applications already don't run on Windows, and Apple's APIs are already multi-arch friendly. Much of the heavy lifting workload is done by system libraries provided by Apple, which can be ported by Apple. Even if the glue code of the app is running in emulated x86.
Just like they did with macOS and nextstep, because apple control the whole stack it will be relatively trivial for them (compared to microsoft) to both port their own stuff to a new ARM based platform and encourage developers to do so as well if the performance benefits are there.
And they will be. It comes down to how much compute you can fit inside of 300-500 watts of thermal output (because that's about the limit of cooling for a desktop/workstation for processors). And scaled up ARM will fit more, plus provide Apple the freedom to make their own architectural tweaks for their niche rather than waiting on intel, who are not focused on what Apple want, but selling to the greater market for general purpose "everything" machines.
Intel are pretty screwed right now and will be for the next 2-3 years, playing catch up, getting their 10nm process off the ground and playing whack-a-mole with security problems.. Apple meanwhile have an architecture that is already encroaching on high end laptop/mid-range desktop intel CPU performance in much less power. They have partners with a process tech lead on intel. By several years (Samsung, TSMC).
For server, scaling is pretty easy. Throw more cores.
For pro workload, a lot of it is a case of throw more cores (or even better) build an ASIC (Afterburner).
For the mac Pro and the workloads it is developed for i really don't think CPU architecture is important (in terms of compatibility). What is important is how fast it runs the applications Apple support on it. If Apple can offer 2-3 or more times the performance with their own custom ARM based silicon the industries who rely on those machines will not care.
People doing serious virtulization on that calibre of hardware are already not using mac Pros to do it. You'd be nuts to use the Mac Pro as a VM host, unless forced to, to legally run macOS server, which is deprecated. They're running that stuff on racks and racks of DELL/HP/CISCO/Nutanix/Openstack/whatever boxes. Not Macs.
edit:
and no, this won't sink intel. intel is FAR bigger than Apple, their cash cow is the datacentre. and this is why apple want out. intel isn't interested in building custom hardware for them. and probably apple don't want their custom IP leaking to others anyway.
Last edited:
maybe silly question as I’m not that knowledgeable but could it be that Apple implements 2 CPUs? One arm one purely for the macOS in a closed system so it can’t be penetrated and then have intel/and cpu there to run apps? That way you have best of both? Is that feasible even?
I don't know what job is that, but Linux runs on ARM already. And about Windows, I hope MS will gives us a full baked Win10 (or whatever comes next) for ARM. If that happens Apple should still support bootcamp, they know many users that use macOS still need Windows (that's why bootcamp exists) so I wouldn't be too worried about that.
One thing is for sure, if you need your laptop working flawless for your job from day 0 the first ARM Macbook generation won't be for you until everything gets polished and software/osses get full support.
I have no idea what you're on about. I was talking about me and my experience. As an Apple user since 1987 (Fat Mac 512K) I'm gutted to think that this might be the end of the road for me. Part of what locks me into iOS and watchOS is the interdependency with my desktop OS. If I'm driven off macOS the whole fragile lock-in really falls apart. All of a sudden I'm tempted by a Garmin Fenix for my wrist. Then I'm down to just iOS. I've never really cross shopped Android seriously, but that's partly because I love handoff and Messages when I'm using my desktop or laptop.
I won't pretend to know anything about CPU architecture, so I have no preconceptions about what this will mean.
However, I do very much hope this whole thing isn't more trouble than it's worth for power/pro users.
However, I do very much hope this whole thing isn't more trouble than it's worth for power/pro users.
I'd place my bet for the earlier versions of Mac Pro to have multi-processors that are themselves multi-cure.