Mac Minis with ARM Prototype chips.

[theluggage]

But Apple don't wait on Intel. Most of the Mac lineup now uses CPUs that are a generation old.

...maybe because there's no particularly compelling reason for Apple to use Skylake, especially as the appropriate models for the rMBP (dual core 28W with Iris graphics for the 13", quad 45W with Iris Pro for the 15) were among the later Skylake models to be released. What they really want is Kaby Lake - not for any improvement in the CPU or GPU but purely for the built-in TB3/USB-C/USB 3.1gen2. They could also do with a GPU that does DisplayPort 1.3 and can drive 5k without splitting it into 2 panes.

 

[Mcckoe]

There is nothing -- and I mean absolutely nothing -- unprecedented about Apple's hardware technology. Apple does not lead in hardware adoption, it rather lags the rest of the industry. Apple's true innovation (and this was explicitly the genius of Steve Jobs) is in making existing technology easier for average folk to use.

Sure, Apple is testing out different CPU families. They're no stranger to non-Intel hardware (they were using PowerPC chips up until around 2005 after all), and they've got the advantage of an OS based on BSD Unix, meaning they (at least should) have less trouble porting their OS to new CPUs, unlike other OS manufacturers.

My problem with Apple is not that they are testing OS X on new hardware, but that they have been so incredibly stingy with what hardware they allow OS X to run on. Apple of course limits the operating system to their own machines, but lately they've been putting low-power chips in all their machines, and moreover made those machines almost entirely non-upgradable by the end user.

In short, where the computer industry as a whole has been moving forward with more powerful hardware and into new computing niches, Apple has moved backward, with less powerful hardware and with fewer options.

I disagree, apple puts more on die memory than any other ARM arch. You see the high difference in processing capabilities expand every year as their chips out perform the industry standard by a whooping 20-40 percent across the board. I will admit this power isn't being used appropriately in many cases, but that is not really apple's fault. In no way would i say apple is moving backward. On the Intel side of things, I kind of understand where you would get that idea, but in reality chip speed is not the current limiting factor in computing, the amount of memory is, and i'm not talking about ram. If your talking about how much data can be crunched per computation cycle, than yes, apple does lag behind the rest of the industry, but again these are choices. Where i would say apple has become complacent is in video processing. They fall in line with what is being offered, and often lag behind the most up to date systems with faster cards and better architectures. Essentially choosing to spec. themselves out of the high-end gaming and video editing industries, which is a huge failure in my eyes. But, apple may not care, why make 50,000 super high-end systems, when you can sell a million with slightly lower specs for a higher profit margin.

I think the move to ARM architectures in laptop and eventually desktop markets, could allow apple to make some amazing systems. They are bound by what is offered by intel, nVidia, ATI, and this doesn't really give them a lot of room to wow over competitors like they could in the "good olde' days". I know change is scary, and the move to these new embedded systems scare a lot of people, cause it means you won't be able to by upgrade components, but if you look at a system as a whole, the moves apple are making, shows they want to be able to offer a product that is better, but they also have to make more money than the year before, which means the share holders, expect them to make money as well as great systems, and i'm not sure how they can achieve both while using the standards set by other companies.

 

[iZac]

It was a painful transition for the community when Apple admitted that the IBM G5s just couldn't keep up with the Intel juggernaut.

But it probably pains Apple just as much now that they have to rely on a 3rd party for mac chip developments. Apple have their A-series chip development lined up to precisely deliver when they want it, not waiting impatiently for Intel to pinch out a slightly newer i7.

PowerPC had ~ 15 year lifespan in macs and we're rapidly approaching that with Intel under the hood. A pure coincidence, perhaps - but a nice one.