Leaving Apple over ARM Based Macs discussion [merged]

[leman]

This is not just a theory. Cortex-A15 has already been tested to actually not be more power efficient than x86 given a sufficiently complex workload:

Source: https://www.extremetech.com/extreme...-or-mips-intrinsically-more-power-efficient/2

As usual, the proof is in the pudding. Yes, Cortex-A15 doesn't come close in terms of perf per/watt to contemporary Intel CPUs. But we are not talking about Cortex-A15, we are talking about Apple-designed CPUs. It's a completely different beast. Not to mention that the article twists the rhetorics. They don't compare the ISA. They compare the implementations.

 

[JimCash]

im doing audio staff recording editing etc etc apple is one way road. When apple goes arm ofc I will follow. Btw atm iPad with arm based nails it. Y don't follow with arm I really can't understand the question. Did you see any benchmark for A13 Bionic? Its better than many intel cpu out there.

 

[Honumaui]

For those who do professional work, would anyone consider switching to Microsoft Surface Book for productivity if Apple decides to go full ARM with their professional lineup?

I can buy current and use for 5 years ? and by then things will be dif heck even use it for 3 years and things will have worked itself out

 

[SocialKonstruct]

That article is from 2014. It's 2020. Intel is still stuck in 2014 and Apple has chips in a $400 phone that are almost as good as what you get in a $2,000 laptop (Windows or Mac).

I'm not worried about the raw horsepower of an ARM Mac, it will be great. I'm a lot more worried about the experience using the programs, and how well optimized third party vendors make their software for it. MacOS has gotten extremely buggy, and they really need to focus on stability not features.

I am stunned that Apple never considered AMD chips in the equation. It's not like Intel is the only game in town ya know?

 

[bill-p]

I don't know if I buy this premise.

If Apple wanted more control and lower component costs, while maintaining maximum compatibility, they would switch to AMD Ryzen 4000 chips. I'm sure AMD would even make them custom skus to fit their needs, and they would be fabbed at Apple's fab partner TSMC using their 7nm process node (or upcoming 5nm). This would get them almost the same thing as switching to ARM (chips for iDevices and Macs rolling off the same assembly line at TSMC), but with a lot less headache for everyone else because it would maintain x64 compatibility.

In terms of control, sure Apple gets to dictate the exact layout of their A-series chips. But they're still beholden to TSMC's advances in process node technology. Today TSMC is leading but maybe tomorrow UMC or Samsung or GlobalFoundries will be leading, and Apple can easily switch from one to another - something they can't do with Intel. But they can do the same switching from fab to fab while using AMD.

In terms of cost, AMD costs much less than Intel. And I'm sure they would love to work with Apple and would create custom models or skus for them.

So if Apple is switching Macs to ARM, there has to be more to it than just hardware flexibility and profit margins.

It's all about control.

Apple currently has to license Intel CPU and AMD GPU. So they already have a contract with AMD. Licensing AMD CPUs may be cheaper, but not in the long run, because the fact is Apple is still spending money to develop the A-series chips. It makes more sense to ditch both Intel and AMD, and just pour all of that money into A-series chips. Then Apple has full control over the entire development process, and they can also set their own pricing.

Moving to ARM also allows Apple to further "close-source" their software platforms, and affords them more control over the driver stack. What this means is Apple gets to dictate what can and cannot be connected to a Mac computer, much like how it happened to the iPhone and iPad. If Apple has to depend on AMD or Intel, they have to be at the mercy of either Intel or AMD for driver support, I/O support, among many other things.

So in short, Apple gains two fundamental things with the move to ARM:

1) Control over pricing and development cycle
2) Control over what can and cannot work with their devices

That's not possible with Intel or AMD in the picture.

 

[LinkRS]

I have one and its an excellent computer, and you frequently find it on sale.


I'd say that its going to be a given that windows itself will not run on an ARM based Mac. During PPC days, there was an emulation and that was the only way to run, but it was barely useable, simply because that application was emulating an intel cpu, and that app called virtual PC was slow.

I understand that MS has an ARM based version of windows, but that hasn't received a high level of traction and its highly limited to apps, i.e., only apps on the MS app store. For instance, Chrome cannot run on that, and steam as well, and running 64bit apps is not something you can do yet

Windows 10 on ARM (https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/arm/) can run Chrome, and other non-ARM based apps. Microsoft included an x86 32-bit emulator (vices virtualization like Parallels or VMware Fusion) that can run most 32-bit Windows apps. The problem is (as you mentioned concerning Virtual PC) is that emulation is slow. In order to get acceptable performance out of emulation, the host has to be several times faster than what it is emulating because it has to simulate hardware components like an x86 CPU for the software to run. With Edge Chromium, Chrome is moot anyway. There are native builds of the new Edge for ARM, and it will run most (if not all) Chrome plug-ins.

The interesting question for this is, will Apple enable a bootcamp like ability for ARM Macs to potentially run Windows 10 on ARM? This would work much better than trying to emulate an x86 CPU and run Windows 10 emulation. Software would still be an issue, as many Windows apps are not offered or developed for Windows 10 on ARM. It is the same issue as mentioned above, it mainly relies on the Microsoft Apps store (but not limited to it). For folks that are curious see these pages too:

How to get the most out of your Windows 10 on ARM device

To get the best battery life and performance from your Windows 10 on ARM device, you'll want to follow a few simple guidelines.

www.windowscentral.com

Windows Arm-based PCs FAQ - Microsoft Support

Learn about using a Windows Arm-based PC and get answers to common questions about Arm-based PCs.

support.microsoft.com

Good luck!

Rich S.

 

[bill-p]

That article is from 2014. It's 2020. Intel is still stuck in 2014 and Apple has chips in a $400 phone that are almost as good as what you get in a $2,000 laptop (Windows or Mac).

I'm not worried about the raw horsepower of an ARM Mac, it will be great. I'm a lot more worried about the experience using the programs, and how well optimized third party vendors make their software for it. MacOS has gotten extremely buggy, and they really need to focus on stability not features.

In 2014, Intel was still on 22nm process.

Intel got stuck on 14nm process starting in late 2015. So you're off by about a year, but you're right. Intel has been stuck on 14nm since 2015.

It's 2020, ARM has now caught up, sure... but...

...you're comparing 7nm ARM chips to 14nm Intel chips.

A more "apples to apples" comparison should be made with the Snapdragon 835, which runs on 10nm process, versus... Intel's 10th gen 10nm chips. I don't think I have to show benchmarks for that?

P.S.: or compare Apple's A11, I guess. That's also on 10nm.

 

[SocialKonstruct]

It's all about control.

Apple currently has to license Intel CPU and AMD GPU. So they already have a contract with AMD. Licensing AMD CPUs may be cheaper, but not in the long run, because the fact is Apple is still spending money to develop the A-series chips. It makes more sense to ditch both Intel and AMD, and just pour all of that money into A-series chips. Then Apple has full control over the entire development process, and they can also set their own pricing.

Moving to ARM also allows Apple to further "close-source" their software platforms, and affords them more control over the driver stack. What this means is Apple gets to dictate what can and cannot be connected to a Mac computer, much like how it happened to the iPhone and iPad. If Apple has to depend on AMD or Intel, they have to be at the mercy of either Intel or AMD for driver support, I/O support, among many other things.

So in short, Apple gains two fundamental things with the move to ARM:

1) Control over pricing and development cycle
2) Control over what can and cannot work with their devices

That's not possible with Intel or AMD in the picture.

And that's the wrong direction. I work with computers to have latitude with using that system. Control over what works and what doesn't is going to be pretty bad in the long run. When that happens I will have no qualms switching to Surface Book full time.
[automerge]1591935379[/automerge]

Windows 10 on ARM (https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/arm/) can run Chrome, and other non-ARM based apps. Microsoft included an x86 32-bit emulator (vices virtualization like Parallels or VMware Fusion) that can run most 32-bit Windows apps. The problem is (as you mentioned concerning Virtual PC) is that emulation is slow. In order to get acceptable performance out of emulation, the host has to be several times faster than what it is emulating because it has to simulate hardware components like an x86 CPU for the software to run. With Edge Chromium, Chrome is moot anyway. There are native builds of the new Edge for ARM, and it will run most (if not all) Chrome plug-ins.

The interesting question for this is, will Apple enable a bootcamp like ability for ARM Macs to potentially run Windows 10 on ARM? This would work much better than trying to emulate an x86 CPU and run Windows 10 emulation. Software would still be an issue, as many Windows apps are not offered or developed for Windows 10 on ARM. It is the same issue as mentioned above, it mainly relies on the Microsoft Apps store (but not limited to it). For folks that are curious see these pages too:

How to get the most out of your Windows 10 on ARM device

To get the best battery life and performance from your Windows 10 on ARM device, you'll want to follow a few simple guidelines.

www.windowscentral.com

Windows Arm-based PCs FAQ - Microsoft Support

Learn about using a Windows Arm-based PC and get answers to common questions about Arm-based PCs.

support.microsoft.com

Good luck!

Rich S.

Indeed.... plus Steam not working with ARM processors is going to be an issue too.

https://www.reddit.com/r/linux_gaming/comments/92431v

 

[pshufd]

I am stunned that Apple never considered AMD chips in the equation. It's not like Intel is the only game in town ya know?

ARM solves the Hackintosh problem. They can make custom ARM chips with their own instructions or variants so that their OS will only run on their ARM chips. I want to see what they come up with. If they can provide x86 Translation (not emulation), that runs 99% of software, that will be good enough for me.

 

[mmomega]

I'll hold my decision until I see what and how it happens.
It won't be an immediate swap and I 100% will never purchase another Microsoft Surface. I have 3 of them and learned from the experience.
If for some reason macOS won't work, I'll find another option but a Surface product won't be it.

 

[SocialKonstruct]

ARM solves the Hackintosh problem. They can make custom ARM chips with their own instructions or variants so that their OS will only run on their ARM chips. I want to see what they come up with. If they can provide x86 Translation (not emulation), that runs 99% of software, that will be good enough for me.

That doesn't solve any problem. Even with custom ARM chips the Hackintosh folks can simply switch to Raspberry Pis to run the new MacOS. Even I have a Hackintosh which I built earlier that works very nicely so far. The own instructions are going to be make things easier to build custom "Macs."

 

[matram]

Even with custom ARM chips the Hackintosh folks can simply switch to Raspberry Pis to run the new MacOS.

I doubt this, even if the ARM chips complies to the ARM instruction set, the implementation of tne architecture will probably differ from standard ARM HW so you will need the Apple chip to run MacOS.

 

[oneMadRssn]

It's all about control.

Apple currently has to license Intel CPU and AMD GPU. So they already have a contract with AMD. Licensing AMD CPUs may be cheaper, but not in the long run, because the fact is Apple is still spending money to develop the A-series chips. It makes more sense to ditch both Intel and AMD, and just pour all of that money into A-series chips. Then Apple has full control over the entire development process, and they can also set their own pricing.

Moving to ARM also allows Apple to further "close-source" their software platforms, and affords them more control over the driver stack. What this means is Apple gets to dictate what can and cannot be connected to a Mac computer, much like how it happened to the iPhone and iPad. If Apple has to depend on AMD or Intel, they have to be at the mercy of either Intel or AMD for driver support, I/O support, among many other things.

So in short, Apple gains two fundamental things with the move to ARM:

1) Control over pricing and development cycle
2) Control over what can and cannot work with their devices

That's not possible with Intel or AMD in the picture.

They'd still have to rely on Intel for Thunderbolt certification, and in any case I'm not sure why Apple would want to limit what can be connected to a Mac rather than expand it - on both pro devices and non-pro devices. I also doubt Apple will develop their own interface to compete with Thunderbolt at this point. So they're still at the mercy of Intel for some I/O support.

Also, Apple doesn't license Intel CPUs and AMD GPUs. Apple purchases physical chips from them, which come with a whole slew of licenses. For the most part as it relates to CPUs, the price of those licenses to AMD or Intel is nothing because AMD and Intel have an famous cross-licensing agreement with each other for all things x86/x64. Apple might save some money by using their own A-series chips on Macs, but we don't really know unless we compare Apple's chip R&D costs versus AMD's pricing.

I think the fundamental questions is: is giving up x64 compatibility worth it for the control Apple gets in return? It can be viewed as a transaction. Apple gets Z amount of control for the cost of giving up x64 compatibility. Is it worth it to Apple? Is it worth it to Apple's customers? I'm not so sure that it is. It's a big risk. For Apple's sake because I'm a fan, I hope it works out. But I am personally dreading having to give up my x64-compatible Mac.

 

[oneMadRssn]

ARM solves the Hackintosh problem. They can make custom ARM chips with their own instructions or variants so that their OS will only run on their ARM chips. I want to see what they come up with. If they can provide x86 Translation (not emulation), that runs 99% of software, that will be good enough for me.

What problem? Is Hackintosh a problem? I doubt Hackintosh represents even one thousandth of a percent of macOS installations.

 

[sixtydashone]

I am stunned that Apple never considered AMD chips in the equation. It's not like Intel is the only game in town ya know?

Up until a year or two ago, AMD really hadn't had any compelling (or competitive) product as far as their processors go. Intel dominated for like a solid decade. Today though, sure, it would make a ton of sense to utilize them. In fact I'd love to see something like an 8 or 12 core AMD Macbook. Insert "shut up and take my money" meme here.

 

[Plutonius]

For those who do professional work, would anyone consider switching to Microsoft Surface Book for productivity if Apple decides to go full ARM with their professional lineup?

Who knows.

To me, it feels foolish to worry about it until we see an actual ARM based Mac including performance and compatibility specs.

 

[UBS28]

Up until a year or two ago, AMD really hadn't had any compelling (or competitive) product as far as their processors go. Intel dominated for like a solid decade. Today though, sure, it would make a ton of sense to utilize them. In fact I'd love to see something like an 8 or 12 core AMD Macbook. Insert "shut up and take my money" meme here.

AMD has 8-core CPU's at 15W TDP, which fits inside a MBA basically. Quite a shame we never get to see that.

I'd take a 8-core AMD CPU in a MBA / 13" MBP over an ARM cpu.

 

[Yebubbleman]

Where did you get any indication of that? That would essentially cripple the whole platform, and Apple knows it. Mac App Store is not nearly as extensive as the iOS one.

The Mac App Store is a failure because no one HAS to use it outside of maintenance of Apple's own apps. If Apple mandates that all ARMacOS apps can only be installed there, that solves THEIR problem. It only cripples the platform if app developers don't play along. The big developers (such as Microsoft and Adobe) will play along. Hell, many of them ALREADY ARE. You can site iOS as a success story for this model as there are millions of apps available to install on iPhones and iPod touches.

Plus Catalyst is Apple betting their entire Mac app ecosystem on the notion that their iOS and iPadOS app ecosystem is powerful enough to replace it if need be. (It's not a gamble I'd agree with or take myself, but it's one that they're betting on nevertheless.)

I'm not saying I want this to happen, by the way. I think it would kill the platform for a lot of Mac users. But it is absolutely possible and I'll bet you anything it has crossed Tim Cook's mind more than once.

I’m also rather positive that big players like MS and Adobe will have their apps ready at launch, not bug-free (like they ever are) but functioning. It’s not 2007 anymore, they can’t afford bad PR with alternatives just waiting for a chance like that.

I think one of the ARM side effects that Apple enjoys is that it would kill off Hackintosh. You can’t do that if the software is severely limited. I’m not sure, but I believe there are ARM Windows builds, so even dual-booting might be still possible.

They may not have day 1 support, but you can be sure that there'll be a Rosetta-like translator in case. If nothing else, the ability to download and install iOS or iPadOS apps natively onto an ARMac isn't outside of the realm of possibility, especially given their Catalyst efforts.

Not necessarily. Actually it will make it easier to port MacOS for Raspberry Pi and other ARM-based desktops which are much cheaper than their Intel equivalents. We could see cheaper Hackintoshes soon and I'm all for that

That logic, while a lovely thought, is deeply flawed. It's not like we had tons of people running PowerPC versions of Mac OS X on their PowerPC-based XBox 360s or their PowerPC based PlayStation 3 consoles. Those were both PowerPC chips and the former of them was even a variant on an actual shipping PowerPC processor in an actual PowerPC Mac. You had Hackintoshes because the implementation of Mac OS X on Intel utilized the same kinds of processors and firmwares and system architectures that were in contemporary x86 Windows and Linux PCs. You didn't have to spoof much to get the operating system to work. This is evident by the existence of DSMOS.kext present in numerous x86 versions of macOS (DSMOS standing for "Don't Steal Mac OS"). With ARM, all of that goes out the windows and more of it the more Apple decides to customize their ARM implementation.

Also, it would stand to reason that we'd have more Android phones out there hacked to run iOS. We don't. And in the same respect, we're not going to see Rasberry Pi's running macOS. But, like I said it's a lovely thought.

MacOS has been in maintenance mode since iPhone arrived, just enough patches to maintain minimal interoperability with iOS - and don't get me started on Touch and Pencil support. Mac should be the -premium- Touch and Pencil experience! And iPad an adjunct for when you want to get away from your desk!

Apple likes to brag about how big its Mac business is, even bigger than it was when iPhone arrived, yet the platform is run less effectively than ever. It is artificially held back to boost failing iPad sales. Not that iPad is a superior experience, just that it's more profitable. This is a mammoth miscalculation/failure of Apple management and we're all paying the price right now. The future? I'm not optimistic.

macOS is NOT in maintenance mode. You're not seeing many marquee features anymore and that's because they're not charging you money to upgrade anymore. But that's not to say that there aren't tons of changes in every new release. There are TOO MANY changes in every new release. Are they focusing on iPads and iPhones more? Yes! But that's because those ecosystems are not plagued with an architecture Apple has zero control over and with an App Store that they can't force people to use. Also, between the keyboard issues (that they've finally remedied) and the fact that people buying a Mac to do basic web surfing, Spotify playback, and document editing (but don't want a Windows PC) can now spend a fraction and buy a decent Chromebook, Mac demand among consumers is going to wane a bit.

But look more carefully under the hood, especially at changes like the one in Catalina where the OS is on a read-only partition separate from Apps and data. Those are big changes and tons of them happen with each release of the OS. Apple is probably making bigger larger scale changes to macOS each year than it ever is with iOS.

I'd say that its going to be a given that windows itself will not run on an ARM based Mac. During PPC days, there was an emulation and that was the only way to run, but it was barely useable, simply because that application was emulating an intel cpu, and that app called virtual PC was slow.

I understand that MS has an ARM based version of windows, but that hasn't received a high level of traction and its highly limited to apps, i.e., only apps on the MS app store. For instance, Chrome cannot run on that, and steam as well, and running 64bit apps is not something you can do yet

Your information is wrong. Windows 10 on ARM64 is not limited to Windows Store apps. It will run 32-Bit ARM, 64-bit ARM, and 32-bit x86 apps. And I'm not talking Windows Store apps. If there is a 32-bit x86 version of Chrome out there, it WILL run on Windows 10 on ARM. In fact, it's highly likely that there will be a 64-bit ARM native version of Chrome for Windows (if there isn't one already) given that the new Edge is based on Chromium (and you know that they're going to make a native version of the new Edge to run on the Surface Book X if nothing else).

I wouldn't game on Windows 10 on ARM64 yet. But that doesn't mean that it can't run apps. As Snapdragon processors improve, more companies are going to keep pushing out devices with 64-bit ARM based versions of Windows 10. Apple could EASILY allow Boot Camp with the ARM64 version of Windows 10. Similarly virtualization is still possible. I'm not saying that x86 emulation (if it came to that) would be awesome, but it would be a far cry from the days of Virtual PC.

I'm contemplating switching to either the Dell XPS 17 or Lenovo Extreme Gen 2.

Windows are as good as MacOS these days.

I know it's fashionable to rag on Windows in these forums, but honestly, Windows 10 is much more stable and less prone to obnoxious because-Apple-felt-like-it-not-because-there-was-a-need-for-it changes. Since Snow Leopard, one in three macOS releases are solid. That means that the other two are not. It's really hard to pay a premium and actually invest in a platform where that is the case. At least the changes in the semi-annual Windows 10 releases are not massive in scale. Plus, Microsoft actually seems to care about customer feedback. Apple will only care if your concerns are aligned with theirs.

ARM will go to the MacBook Air or 12” MacBook.

It's going to all of them. They're not making this solely about the MacBook Air. Plus, ARM is CURRENTLY in every Mac that isn't the non-Pro iMacs. The T1 and T2 chips are ARM and they do things previously handled by either the CPU or other on-board components. This whole debate is about when the next ARM-based processor takes over the duties of the CPU.

People are able to use Macs in professional work because they can use legacy x86 programs in Bootcamp. If your job requires those types of programs (these types of programs will NEVER be ported to ARM), and the new ARM Mac can't do run them at an acceptable level, then Mac's will no longer even be an option. They will have to get a PC to run the legacy programs (or an Intel Mac).

The ARM64 version of Windows 10 will run 32-bit x86 apps. Just not 64-bit x86 apps. If you're talking about true legacy programs, those will most likely be 32-bit x86 apps, which means that they'll still run on the ARM64 version of Windows 10. Furthermore, it stands to reason that the more ARM64-based Windows 10 systems there are out there (whether they are an ARMac with Boot Camp or not), the more incentive there will be for developers on the Windows side of things to create a 64-bit ARM version for ARM64-based Windows 10.

I don't think that you're going to see a mass migration of gamers without being able to run Windows.

Gamers buying a Mac are, today, limited to the Mac Pro (overkill and way too much money for a gamer). the iMac Pro (same problem), a high-end 21.5" iMac, a 27" iMac, or a 16" MacBook Pro. A 16" MacBook Pro, while probably decent for a few titles, is not the best laptop to game with even with Boot Camp. You'd need to really soup up the 21.5" iMac to make it worthwhile for all but the more casual gamers. That leaves the 27" iMac. I don't doubt that a lot of 27" iMac customers are also gamers that Boot Camp to play games. But considering how little of Apple's Mac business is made up by desktops (let alone THAT desktop), I'm sure they're more banking on Catalyst games ported over from iPadOS to appeal to anyone buying a Mac with gaming in mind. I'm not saying I'd agree with them, but I'm sure that's their thought process.

They will get it first and then maybe after 2 years when all software has been ported successfully, then the MacBook Pro line will also transition maybe. The MBA and MB can easily run on ARM now as most people use them for very simple tasks and do not rely on specialized software.

The MacBook Pro, iMac Pro and Mac Pro are not ready to go to ARM right now (in my opinion). So I will be very surprised if Apple does otherwise.

If I had to guess, the first ARM based SoC that replaces the Intel chip will be the T3 chip. Or at least, that's how they'll market an A14 or A15 based ARMac processor. For the MacBook Air, the Mac mini, and the 13" MacBook Pro, they'll be able to replace the Intel chip and T2 with that would-be T3 chip with no problem. Most users of those machines won't look back.

For the 16" MacBook Pro, iMacs, iMac Pro (if they still continue having such a thing), and Mac Pro, you'll probably still have an Intel processor for x86-64 apps and the T3 for ARM apps. The system would interchangeably switch between them as needed. This would allow Apple to pursue most developers to switch to ARM while still users in need of higher-end systems that are not updating quickly a time to adjust. I'd imagine that development tools (Xcode) will phase out x86 sooner, leaving it up to users to adopt new software. Then, maybe a few years down the road, possibly by the time the would-be T4 Macs come out, there is no Intel processor in tow because the number of people still using Intel apps will have diminished enough for Apple to make the cut-off.

So, yeah, I'd imagine that the higher-end offerings will not cut ties to x86 as soon as the lower-end ones do.

Ok, I wanted to clarify understanding before I fully responded because it has been stated over and over that the entire Mac line is transitioning to ARM. Nothing will be left on Intel. I’m curious as to what will transition first. Apple has 3 new ARM chips ready to go. Where is the 12-core processor going? That’s not going into an MBA or MB. 12 Cores to browse the net and post on social media? That smells of either an iMac/iMac Pro or maybe even the MBP 16” instead. To add, Prosser also stated on a podcast last month that the 16” MBP was going ARM early according to his sources. Right or wrong, I believe Apple is going to let everyone know they are serious about the transition by being swift and by throwing in a “professional” machine transitioning earlier in the overall process. Starting with 2021, each new release will be ARM-based (unless COVID continues to affect timelines).

As far as readiness, I’d agree, but Apple historically makes swift, user experience affecting changes unapologetically and leaves consumers with a take it or leave it decision to make. Being that I have a 10th gen 13” MBP now, my concern lies in how long will it be supported and what the ultimate benefits will be for ME in the ARM transition (I understand how Apple is benefiting). The order of which products transition to ARM and how fast are less concerning to me because either way, by the time I’m in the market again for my next Mac, everything will be ARM.

To answer OP’s question, overall I have spent more time with Windows than Mac so returning wouldn’t be a problem. I do expect that my current MBP will be supported at least for the next 3 years minimum. By that time, if Apple ends Intel support, then I’ll evaluate where my workflow stands and what’s available to meet it. I wouldn’t get a Surface Book since there’s better Windows-based laptops out there, but I get what you were asking in general.

If you bought a PowerBook G4 following the Intel transition announcement, it would've been able to run most software (with the only limitation being that anything less than a G5 was already running Mac OS X slower than is ideal) until 2009. That's four years, which isn't bad. And that's not even saying that newer versions of software wouldn't have worked past that point! That's just when Apple decided not to support the next OS. But if you had apps that were Universal Binaries that still supported 10.5 or 10.4, you were still golden! I can't imagine similar mileage here. Apple still supports Ivy Bridge (3rd Gen Intel Core i processors) Macs that came out in 2012. Not to say that you can't also run the latest version of Windows 10 on that same hardware. But that's a greater longevity than Apple has ever had on any of its Macs. I wouldn't worry that they'll leave your 2020 13" MacBook Pro in the dust anytime soon.

As for what would transition first? I couldn't tell you. Last time, it was the 15" "Pro" laptop (which was the middle size) and the iMacs that went first and the consumer-friendly laptops and "Pro" tower that went last.

This time, it may go differently. Again, I'm guessing that the "T3" approach will be what happens; the Intel processor will be a discrete add-on kind of how discrete GPUs are a feature of only the higher-end Macs. I'd wager we'll see it first on the MacBook Air and a model of iMac. And again, I think we won't see the removal of the Intel CPU on the 16" MacBook Pro, Mac Pro, or iMac Pro until the very end of the transition. But it totally depends on how they decide to do it.

Either way, again, I wouldn't worry about not getting your money's worth of life out of your 2020 13" MacBook Pro. Odds are decent that they'll keep supporting it for the standard length of time (which, again, is much longer than it was ten years ago).

Interesting. I don’t think a professional machine should be switched to ARM quickly at all, but Apple. I’m eager to see what’s revealed on the 22nd about all of this - hopefully much more than “Here’s ARM!”

Look back at the Intel switch from 15 years ago. Steve Jobs didn't just say "whoop, we're switched now!". He set the expectation that it'd be a two year transition (he ended up doing it in one). Tim Cook is no Steve Jobs. That's not to say that we'll necessarily like it. But Catalyst is not compelling enough to cover the platform during an overnight switch to ARM and abandonment of Intel. And Tim Cook for sure knows that.

This thread highlights the two main scenarios regarding the Mac switching to ARM.

I can't wait to come back to it once we ACTUALLY know what Apple is going to do.

I think Apple is being underestimated though, even if Steve is no longer around to drive the transition as smoothly as before.

I would love to see Apple pull out a SERIOUS A-chip that blows x86 out of the water, and makes macOS great again.

The macOS is just too good for it to just go away, so I think those worried it'll be replaced with iPadOS are overreacting.

This WWDC will be very, very interesting.

macOS needs more than a new processor to be made "great again". Actually, there's not much wrong with the Intel processors that are in it now, other than the fact that Intel can't seem to keep to a dependable schedule. Apple just has an unhealthy obsession with making everything thinner than it has to be. You don't need a 15" "Pro" notebook to be any thinner than the 2012-15 Retina. Let alone thinner than the Unibody design that preceded it.

As for your assertions that "macOS is just too good for it to just go away", it hasn't been good in many years. The problems that macOS have can mostly be attributed to a development cycle that's way too short and that does way too much to change the underlying system. One in every three releases is good enough to use seriously. The other two are anywhere from glitchy and problematic to simply unusable. That's a worse track record than Windows! They need to slow the hell down.

As for people being worried about iPadOS replacing it overreacting. I don't think the fear is unfounded. iPadOS won't ever replace macOS. However, macOS, with every new release has more iPadOS-like changes to things like how the operating system is updated, installed, how apps run, and the like. Catalina's change to put the OS on a separate read-only partition and keep the apps and data on a Mac on a "Data" partition is a page taken directly out of the iOS/iPadOS playbook. The experience of using a Mac will never be the experience of using an iPad or vice versa. But you're completely fooling yourself if you think that they're not trying to otherwise bring parity between the two OSes under the hood.

Yes, if I was using an key application for work that was Windows Intel (64 bit Win32) only and I wanted to get an ARM Mac. And maybe if I wanted a gaming rig.

Otherwise, no, because Windows is a mess.

However in 2021, if Windows X launches with a consistent UI and the old legacy stuff ripped out, it could be a great draw for consumers.

Ditto for work, if the virtualisation & fast OS updates etc plus a WinUI makeover for legacy Win32 style apps can be applied to Windows 10, then Windows could be looking pretty good in 2021.

Trouble is, that MS have a track record of making noises about cleaning up Windows which they never quite do.

I think that Windows XP was the closest that they ever got to having a consistent UI experience in Windows this century (although some obscure utilities were still using Windows 3.11 style open/save dialogs).

You're saying that Windows is a mess because they don't update 100% of their UI to match? That's absurd. A pretty or consistent UI does not a clean OS make. Nor is Windows 10 lackluster to use because some old Control Panel applet has interface elements designed twenty years ago (but otherwise still function fine).

As for USB-C, it’s 2020. We should be almost exclusively USB-C by now. In 2003 (5 years after Apple released the iMac with no legacy ports) no one was complaining that “pros” needed SCSI or ADB ports.
[automerge]1591861539[/automerge]

Windows 10 isn’t a bad OS overall. However, MS has not been successful at getting developers to migrate to x64. Heck, Office still has a “32-bit vs 64-bit” flowchart because of legacy add-ins.” I’m sure Microsoft is rooting for Apple’s success with ARM since they would like to be free of legacy code, too. If Apple succeeds it gives Microsoft some leverage to tell their OEM customers to get with the program.

Microsoft no longer recommends that the 32-bit version of Windows 10 be chosen. Most OEM partners don't even supply drivers for it. I'll agree that they dug their own hole when it came to the 32-bit vs. 64-bit Office debate for Windows, but, as of Office 2019, they've backtracked on it and are encouraging those using Office 365 (now Microsoft 365) to do the same.

As for your assertion that we should be nearly 100% USB-C right now, that's absurd. USB-A came out in the mid 90's. It took nearly 10 years to become ubiquitous, and even then, you still didn't see it in places until 2010. USB-C only hit the market five years ago. Most of us who actually attach things to our computer other than power adapters still need adapters and dongles for USB-C. Most PC motherboards still feature USB-C as a luxury and not as a standard (to replace, at least, the USB 3.1 USB-A ports out there). Most mice and keyboards are still USB-A. And no, not everyone is living the wireless keyboard and mouse life (at least not those that don't stillt require a USB-A receiver). Give it another 10, maybe 15 years, then we'll talk about how ubiquitous it should be. Until then, YOU'RE EARLY!

I like to think I've added 6 or 7 years to my life expectancy by never having owned a Microsoft product. I'm not sure I'd be willing to obliterate that kind of time benefit unless Adobe, et al, were unwilling to develop more specialized apps for ARM.

Hate to break it to you, but it's not that you've shaved 6-7 years of your life for not using a Microsoft product as much as it is that you're too afraid to learn something different than what you're used to. Windows 10 gives me less headaches than 2 out of every 3 macOS releases. Apple's track record is terrible when it comes to macOS these days.

I am stunned that Apple never considered AMD chips in the equation. It's not like Intel is the only game in town ya know?

I'd bet my next three years worth of paychecks that Apple has considered AMD often. The partnership they already have with AMD on the discrete graphics side of things is substantial. As others have stated many times in this thread, it's not JUST about the x86 vs. ARM differences. Apple having the kind of end-to-end control over the Mac that they do over the iPad, iPhone, iPod touch, AppleTV, and Apple Watch is the main prize for them.

That doesn't solve any problem. Even with custom ARM chips the Hackintosh folks can simply switch to Raspberry Pis to run the new MacOS. Even I have a Hackintosh which I built earlier that works very nicely so far. The own instructions are going to be make things easier to build custom "Macs."

Switching to ARM solves Apple's problem of the existence of Hackintoshes (something they very much didn't want to have happen when they switched to Intel, as evidenced by the existence of DSMOS.kext, a kernel extension the purpose of which was to block installations of macOS on non-Apple hardware). It doesn't solve anything for users. And no, you're not going to see Rasberry Pi based Hackintoshes or any other ARM-based Hackintosh for the exact same reason you didn't see anyone using an XBox 360 (which effectively ran a PowerPC G5 not dissimilar to that in the iMac G5 and Power Mac G5) running PowerPC versions of Mac OS X.

Apple's implentation of x86 and use of the Intel chips were similar enough to PCs that Hackintoshing wasn't that difficult. The UEFI implentation was the similar enough. With ARM, especially ARM chips of their own design, they can write all the rules, make whatever firmware they want, and have it be as locked down as they want. It's going to go back to the way it was pre-Intel switch. The only computers you'll be able to get running macOS will be Macs. Though, unlike how things were in the PowerPC days, there will be less and less of a compelling reason to own a Mac.

 

[1-tabbycat-1]

As it stands today, NOTHING Apple does could make me switch to a Windows laptop. I frequently am loaned different high-end windows laptops for my work and they are always a nightmare!

• Trackpad is never as smooth as a Mac. Always jumping around, difficult or impossible to get the acceleration and speed just right
• Sound is abysmal in so many ways. Whether it is crappy speakers, crappy enhanced “B&O” drivers that continually crash, failed soundcards, terrible mic quality for conference calls... the list goes on
• Bluetooth? Forget it. Maybe it is hardware, drivers or the apps (Skype, MS Teams Etc.) but trying to get a reliable BT connection to a headset or EarPods is a struggle
• Need to change a setting or preference? There always seems to be about 3 different places you need to look. And they all have multiple tabs. Then you get into the control panels that look like they haven’t been updated since Windows 95. Then IT support tells you to start entering instructions on the command line. I’ve had one laptop for two years and I STILL can’t get a single language across Windows, cloud services and all Apps
• Screen quality is poor. Maybe they have Retina grade screens but all the ones I use are pixelated, washed out messes.
• Nobody knows how to fix problems. Across all the different IT helpdesks I have called or visited, the poor folk just seem to Putz around trying different things until they happen to fix whatever the issue was. There just seems to be too many generations of DOS, Windows 3.1, Windows 10 bolted together to ever get to the bottom of an issue
• I could go on...

I will grant you that I am not an absolute PC power user, but I find using PC laptops to be a continual, grinding and soul-destroying activity. I do not have the time or inclination to become an absolute PC nerd to fix all my issues. The new Macs could be powered by gerbils on a wheel and I still wouldn’t switch!

 

[thunng8]

AMD has 8-core CPU's at 15W TDP, which fits inside a MBA basically. Quite a shame we never get to see that.

I'd take a 8-core AMD CPU in a MBA / 13" MBP over an ARM cpu.

No it doesn't. MBA takes 9W chips. The low end 13" MBP uses 15W chips.

It is an impressive chip though but I predict the upcoming A14 based chip for mac will easily eclipse it.

 

[turbineseaplane]

The Mac App Store is a failure because no one HAS to use it outside of maintenance of Apple's own apps. If Apple mandates that all ARMacOS apps can only be installed there, that solves THEIR problem. It only cripples the platform if app developers don't play along.

Being outside the MAS allows for entire classes of Apps that are either better (less hamstrung by Apple implementation rules) and/or are simply more viable due to not having to give Apple the criminal level cut of 30%.

 

[bluecoast]

The Mac App Store is a failure because no one HAS to use it outside of maintenance of Apple's own apps. If Apple mandates that all ARMacOS apps can only be installed there, that solves THEIR problem. It only cripples the platform if app developers don't play along. The big developers (such as Microsoft and Adobe) will play along. Hell, many of them ALREADY ARE. You can site iOS as a success story for this model as there are millions of apps available to install on iPhones and iPod touches.

Plus Catalyst is Apple betting their entire Mac app ecosystem on the notion that their iOS and iPadOS app ecosystem is powerful enough to replace it if need be. (It's not a gamble I'd agree with or take myself, but it's one that they're betting on nevertheless.)

I'm not saying I want this to happen, by the way. I think it would kill the platform for a lot of Mac users. But it is absolutely possible and I'll bet you anything it has crossed Tim Cook's mind more than once.



They may not have day 1 support, but you can be sure that there'll be a Rosetta-like translator in case. If nothing else, the ability to download and install iOS or iPadOS apps natively onto an ARMac isn't outside of the realm of possibility, especially given their Catalyst efforts.



That logic, while a lovely thought, is deeply flawed. It's not like we had tons of people running PowerPC versions of Mac OS X on their PowerPC-based XBox 360s or their PowerPC based PlayStation 3 consoles. Those were both PowerPC chips and the former of them was even a variant on an actual shipping PowerPC processor in an actual PowerPC Mac. You had Hackintoshes because the implementation of Mac OS X on Intel utilized the same kinds of processors and firmwares and system architectures that were in contemporary x86 Windows and Linux PCs. You didn't have to spoof much to get the operating system to work. This is evident by the existence of DSMOS.kext present in numerous x86 versions of macOS (DSMOS standing for "Don't Steal Mac OS"). With ARM, all of that goes out the windows and more of it the more Apple decides to customize their ARM implementation.

Also, it would stand to reason that we'd have more Android phones out there hacked to run iOS. We don't. And in the same respect, we're not going to see Rasberry Pi's running macOS. But, like I said it's a lovely thought.



macOS is NOT in maintenance mode. You're not seeing many marquee features anymore and that's because they're not charging you money to upgrade anymore. But that's not to say that there aren't tons of changes in every new release. There are TOO MANY changes in every new release. Are they focusing on iPads and iPhones more? Yes! But that's because those ecosystems are not plagued with an architecture Apple has zero control over and with an App Store that they can't force people to use. Also, between the keyboard issues (that they've finally remedied) and the fact that people buying a Mac to do basic web surfing, Spotify playback, and document editing (but don't want a Windows PC) can now spend a fraction and buy a decent Chromebook, Mac demand among consumers is going to wane a bit.

But look more carefully under the hood, especially at changes like the one in Catalina where the OS is on a read-only partition separate from Apps and data. Those are big changes and tons of them happen with each release of the OS. Apple is probably making bigger larger scale changes to macOS each year than it ever is with iOS.



Your information is wrong. Windows 10 on ARM64 is not limited to Windows Store apps. It will run 32-Bit ARM, 64-bit ARM, and 32-bit x86 apps. And I'm not talking Windows Store apps. If there is a 32-bit x86 version of Chrome out there, it WILL run on Windows 10 on ARM. In fact, it's highly likely that there will be a 64-bit ARM native version of Chrome for Windows (if there isn't one already) given that the new Edge is based on Chromium (and you know that they're going to make a native version of the new Edge to run on the Surface Book X if nothing else).

I wouldn't game on Windows 10 on ARM64 yet. But that doesn't mean that it can't run apps. As Snapdragon processors improve, more companies are going to keep pushing out devices with 64-bit ARM based versions of Windows 10. Apple could EASILY allow Boot Camp with the ARM64 version of Windows 10. Similarly virtualization is still possible. I'm not saying that x86 emulation (if it came to that) would be awesome, but it would be a far cry from the days of Virtual PC.



I know it's fashionable to rag on Windows in these forums, but honestly, Windows 10 is much more stable and less prone to obnoxious because-Apple-felt-like-it-not-because-there-was-a-need-for-it changes. Since Snow Leopard, one in three macOS releases are solid. That means that the other two are not. It's really hard to pay a premium and actually invest in a platform where that is the case. At least the changes in the semi-annual Windows 10 releases are not massive in scale. Plus, Microsoft actually seems to care about customer feedback. Apple will only care if your concerns are aligned with theirs.



It's going to all of them. They're not making this solely about the MacBook Air. Plus, ARM is CURRENTLY in every Mac that isn't the non-Pro iMacs. The T1 and T2 chips are ARM and they do things previously handled by either the CPU or other on-board components. This whole debate is about when the next ARM-based processor takes over the duties of the CPU.



The ARM64 version of Windows 10 will run 32-bit x86 apps. Just not 64-bit x86 apps. If you're talking about true legacy programs, those will most likely be 32-bit x86 apps, which means that they'll still run on the ARM64 version of Windows 10. Furthermore, it stands to reason that the more ARM64-based Windows 10 systems there are out there (whether they are an ARMac with Boot Camp or not), the more incentive there will be for developers on the Windows side of things to create a 64-bit ARM version for ARM64-based Windows 10.



Gamers buying a Mac are, today, limited to the Mac Pro (overkill and way too much money for a gamer). the iMac Pro (same problem), a high-end 21.5" iMac, a 27" iMac, or a 16" MacBook Pro. A 16" MacBook Pro, while probably decent for a few titles, is not the best laptop to game with even with Boot Camp. You'd need to really soup up the 21.5" iMac to make it worthwhile for all but the more casual gamers. That leaves the 27" iMac. I don't doubt that a lot of 27" iMac customers are also gamers that Boot Camp to play games. But considering how little of Apple's Mac business is made up by desktops (let alone THAT desktop), I'm sure they're more banking on Catalyst games ported over from iPadOS to appeal to anyone buying a Mac with gaming in mind. I'm not saying I'd agree with them, but I'm sure that's their thought process.



If I had to guess, the first ARM based SoC that replaces the Intel chip will be the T3 chip. Or at least, that's how they'll market an A14 or A15 based ARMac processor. For the MacBook Air, the Mac mini, and the 13" MacBook Pro, they'll be able to replace the Intel chip and T2 with that would-be T3 chip with no problem. Most users of those machines won't look back.

For the 16" MacBook Pro, iMacs, iMac Pro (if they still continue having such a thing), and Mac Pro, you'll probably still have an Intel processor for x86-64 apps and the T3 for ARM apps. The system would interchangeably switch between them as needed. This would allow Apple to pursue most developers to switch to ARM while still users in need of higher-end systems that are not updating quickly a time to adjust. I'd imagine that development tools (Xcode) will phase out x86 sooner, leaving it up to users to adopt new software. Then, maybe a few years down the road, possibly by the time the would-be T4 Macs come out, there is no Intel processor in tow because the number of people still using Intel apps will have diminished enough for Apple to make the cut-off.

So, yeah, I'd imagine that the higher-end offerings will not cut ties to x86 as soon as the lower-end ones do.



If you bought a PowerBook G4 following the Intel transition announcement, it would've been able to run most software (with the only limitation being that anything less than a G5 was already running Mac OS X slower than is ideal) until 2009. That's four years, which isn't bad. And that's not even saying that newer versions of software wouldn't have worked past that point! That's just when Apple decided not to support the next OS. But if you had apps that were Universal Binaries that still supported 10.5 or 10.4, you were still golden! I can't imagine similar mileage here. Apple still supports Ivy Bridge (3rd Gen Intel Core i processors) Macs that came out in 2012. Not to say that you can't also run the latest version of Windows 10 on that same hardware. But that's a greater longevity than Apple has ever had on any of its Macs. I wouldn't worry that they'll leave your 2020 13" MacBook Pro in the dust anytime soon.

As for what would transition first? I couldn't tell you. Last time, it was the 15" "Pro" laptop (which was the middle size) and the iMacs that went first and the consumer-friendly laptops and "Pro" tower that went last.

This time, it may go differently. Again, I'm guessing that the "T3" approach will be what happens; the Intel processor will be a discrete add-on kind of how discrete GPUs are a feature of only the higher-end Macs. I'd wager we'll see it first on the MacBook Air and a model of iMac. And again, I think we won't see the removal of the Intel CPU on the 16" MacBook Pro, Mac Pro, or iMac Pro until the very end of the transition. But it totally depends on how they decide to do it.

Either way, again, I wouldn't worry about not getting your money's worth of life out of your 2020 13" MacBook Pro. Odds are decent that they'll keep supporting it for the standard length of time (which, again, is much longer than it was ten years ago).



Look back at the Intel switch from 15 years ago. Steve Jobs didn't just say "whoop, we're switched now!". He set the expectation that it'd be a two year transition (he ended up doing it in one). Tim Cook is no Steve Jobs. That's not to say that we'll necessarily like it. But Catalyst is not compelling enough to cover the platform during an overnight switch to ARM and abandonment of Intel. And Tim Cook for sure knows that.



macOS needs more than a new processor to be made "great again". Actually, there's not much wrong with the Intel processors that are in it now, other than the fact that Intel can't seem to keep to a dependable schedule. Apple just has an unhealthy obsession with making everything thinner than it has to be. You don't need a 15" "Pro" notebook to be any thinner than the 2012-15 Retina. Let alone thinner than the Unibody design that preceded it.

As for your assertions that "macOS is just too good for it to just go away", it hasn't been good in many years. The problems that macOS have can mostly be attributed to a development cycle that's way too short and that does way too much to change the underlying system. One in every three releases is good enough to use seriously. The other two are anywhere from glitchy and problematic to simply unusable. That's a worse track record than Windows! They need to slow the hell down.

As for people being worried about iPadOS replacing it overreacting. I don't think the fear is unfounded. iPadOS won't ever replace macOS. However, macOS, with every new release has more iPadOS-like changes to things like how the operating system is updated, installed, how apps run, and the like. Catalina's change to put the OS on a separate read-only partition and keep the apps and data on a Mac on a "Data" partition is a page taken directly out of the iOS/iPadOS playbook. The experience of using a Mac will never be the experience of using an iPad or vice versa. But you're completely fooling yourself if you think that they're not trying to otherwise bring parity between the two OSes under the hood.



You're saying that Windows is a mess because they don't update 100% of their UI to match? That's absurd. A pretty or consistent UI does not a clean OS make. Nor is Windows 10 lackluster to use because some old Control Panel applet has interface elements designed twenty years ago (but otherwise still function fine).



Microsoft no longer recommends that the 32-bit version of Windows 10 be chosen. Most OEM partners don't even supply drivers for it. I'll agree that they dug their own hole when it came to the 32-bit vs. 64-bit Office debate for Windows, but, as of Office 2019, they've backtracked on it and are encouraging those using Office 365 (now Microsoft 365) to do the same.

As for your assertion that we should be nearly 100% USB-C right now, that's absurd. USB-A came out in the mid 90's. It took nearly 10 years to become ubiquitous, and even then, you still didn't see it in places until 2010. USB-C only hit the market five years ago. Most of us who actually attach things to our computer other than power adapters still need adapters and dongles for USB-C. Most PC motherboards still feature USB-C as a luxury and not as a standard (to replace, at least, the USB 3.1 USB-A ports out there). Most mice and keyboards are still USB-A. And no, not everyone is living the wireless keyboard and mouse life (at least not those that don't stillt require a USB-A receiver). Give it another 10, maybe 15 years, then we'll talk about how ubiquitous it should be. Until then, YOU'RE EARLY!



Hate to break it to you, but it's not that you've shaved 6-7 years of your life for not using a Microsoft product as much as it is that you're too afraid to learn something different than what you're used to. Windows 10 gives me less headaches than 2 out of every 3 macOS releases. Apple's track record is terrible when it comes to macOS these days.



I'd bet my next three years worth of paychecks that Apple has considered AMD often. The partnership they already have with AMD on the discrete graphics side of things is substantial. As others have stated many times in this thread, it's not JUST about the x86 vs. ARM differences. Apple having the kind of end-to-end control over the Mac that they do over the iPad, iPhone, iPod touch, AppleTV, and Apple Watch is the main prize for them.



Switching to ARM solves Apple's problem of the existence of Hackintoshes (something they very much didn't want to have happen when they switched to Intel, as evidenced by the existence of DSMOS.kext, a kernel extension the purpose of which was to block installations of macOS on non-Apple hardware). It doesn't solve anything for users. And no, you're not going to see Rasberry Pi based Hackintoshes or any other ARM-based Hackintosh for the exact same reason you didn't see anyone using an XBox 360 (which effectively ran a PowerPC G5 not dissimilar to that in the iMac G5 and Power Mac G5) running PowerPC versions of Mac OS X.

Apple's implentation of x86 and use of the Intel chips were similar enough to PCs that Hackintoshing wasn't that difficult. The UEFI implentation was the similar enough. With ARM, especially ARM chips of their own design, they can write all the rules, make whatever firmware they want, and have it be as locked down as they want. It's going to go back to the way it was pre-Intel switch. The only computers you'll be able to get running macOS will be Macs. Though, unlike how things were in the PowerPC days, there will be less and less of a compelling reason to own a Mac.

I don’t think it’s absurd to want a system that is well thought out, consistent and easy to use.

I presume you have an iPhone? Well arguably that is all of the above.

Windows 20 is a bizarre mash-up of about 20 years worth of applications/UI.

Imagine if Apple had left a few of their first party apps unchanged in their iOS 6 state (with some fully updated) settings app with different generations of iOS icons - and that Apple had made it possible for iOS 6 apps to still run unchanged.

Well that’s what Windows 10 is like.

Thankfully - from mock-ups teased a few months ago of a cleaned up Windows 10 and their efforts with WinUI - even Microsoft now know that things have to change.

 

[pshufd]

Being outside the MAS allows for entire classes of Apps that either better (less hamstrung by Apple implementation rules) and or simply more viable due to not having to give Apple the criminal level cut of 30%.

I had a program that was free (he took donations and I donated). He then went to the App Store and charged. He then went back to the model of you download it from his site and send donations. The PC model is that a lot of stuff is free and that doesn't work with App Stores.

 

[maflynn]

The Mac App Store is a failure because no one HAS to use it outside of maintenance of Apple's own apps. If Apple mandates that all ARMacOS apps can only be installed there, that solves THEIR problem

It solves one problem but creates another, not all developers will be willing to live under apple's thumb, and have apple take a cut of their sales.

 

[bill-p]

They'd still have to rely on Intel for Thunderbolt certification, and in any case I'm not sure why Apple would want to limit what can be connected to a Mac rather than expand it - on both pro devices and non-pro devices. I also doubt Apple will develop their own interface to compete with Thunderbolt at this point. So they're still at the mercy of Intel for some I/O support.

Also, Apple doesn't license Intel CPUs and AMD GPUs. Apple purchases physical chips from them, which come with a whole slew of licenses. For the most part as it relates to CPUs, the price of those licenses to AMD or Intel is nothing because AMD and Intel have an famous cross-licensing agreement with each other for all things x86/x64. Apple might save some money by using their own A-series chips on Macs, but we don't really know unless we compare Apple's chip R&D costs versus AMD's pricing.

I think the fundamental questions is: is giving up x64 compatibility worth it for the control Apple gets in return? It can be viewed as a transaction. Apple gets Z amount of control for the cost of giving up x64 compatibility. Is it worth it to Apple? Is it worth it to Apple's customers? I'm not so sure that it is. It's a big risk. For Apple's sake because I'm a fan, I hope it works out. But I am personally dreading having to give up my x64-compatible Mac.

USB 4.0 is coming and it encapsulates Thunderbolt 3. That should solve your Thunderbolt 3 needs.

Giving up x86-64 compatibility doesn't have any downside for Apple at all. Their developers are already split on ARM and x86 development, so consolidating everything to just ARM makes more sense financially and structurally.

It's only a problem with consumers who depend on x86 legacy software. If you're one of these folks, I think the underlying message is: your days are numbered, and you are currently at the mercy of software developers.

As a developer, I'm watching this very closely to see if Apple will still allow me to develop and distribute open-source software on their platform. If not, I'll take my business over to Microsoft promptly. Of all the bad things they are doing, they are still at least allowing open-source software to run on the platform.