Mac Update Cycle Faces Uncertainty as Intel Abandons Tick-Tock Strategy

[Stella]

Well, I was referring to existing windows applications... not OSX apps. Your post that I replied was explicitly about Windows 10:

Why would that happen? Windows 10 can run on ARM, so it's not like Apple would be ditching any compatibility with them.

Any app uploaded to any of Apple's app stores within the last year (or was it a few years ago now?) was uploaded in an intermediate format, from which Apple can compile it to any final architecture that they want.
<snip>

 

[kyleh22]

It's not only lack of competition, it's lack of a compelling need for more power. This has happened before, where we end up with ridiculous numbers of clock cycles that sit unused. Until there are new killer apps that really need mega processing power, people will be happy to keep their existing machines that function just fine.

No reason to make power hungry software if there's no computer to run it....its a what came first, the chicken or the egg type of thing.

 

[Nunyabinez]

No reason to make power hungry software if there's no computer to run it....its a what came first, the chicken or the egg type of thing.

True, but there has been the processing power for quite some time and no one has been able to come up with software to really use it. That's why Intel has been working on reducing power consumption more than increasing performance. Laptops that are just as powerful but more efficient are more in demand than more powerful laptops are.

I imagine that there are limits to what software can do just like there are limits to how small transistors can get.

 

[manu chao]

The 28w CPU's suitable for the 13" MBP were released in February and VAIO were the first to use them in their new ultrabooks. The 15W CPU's suitable for the MBA were released last September/October!

Not according to Wikipedia (the ones going into the 13" MBP are the 6267U, 6287U and 6567U, which still have a release date of TBD). And the 15 W Skylake chips released last September were the ones with lower-grade GPU (HD 520), the ones with the higher-grade GPU (Iris 540), the 6260U, 6360U, 6560U, 6650U, and 6660U (Apple will likely pick three from those five models) are still listed with a release date of 'TBD'. Note that Apple uses the 15 W Broadwell chips with the higher-grade GPU (HD 6000 vs HD5500) in their still current MBAs.

Macrumors (and other Mac sites) have published several articles over the last six months or so whenever a new set of Skylake CPUs had been released that potentially could be used in existing Mac product lines. The 6267U, 6287U and 6567U and the 6260U, 6360U, 6560U, 6650U, 6660U have not been among those. Maybe Wikipedia and all the Mac sites have missed their release...

The Skylake processors that would go into the MB One (6Y54, 6Y57, 6Y75) have been available since last September. The ones that would go into the 15" MBP (6350HQ, 6770HQ, 6870HQ, and/or 6970HQ, ie, the ones with the higher-grade GPU Iris Pro 580) have been released in the first quarter of 2016. So, yes you can fault them for not updating the MacBook One but then Apple has the antiquated notion of normally not updating products more than once per year and while the Broadwell CPU in the MB One wasn't brand-new when the MB One was released it, the release date of the latter was likely tied to other things (foremost the design of the completely new notebook not being ready or the goal to release it together with updated MBAs and 13" MBPs which shared components like the force-touch trackpad and whose processor were on a slightly different schedule than the one in the MB One).
[doublepost=1460506480][/doublepost]

If you look for some of the old Keynotes, that's exactly how it worked. For all those developers who had used Xcode for their development, there was a button in the interface for PowerPC or Intel or both. A big deal was made of the fact that application developers were able to get a working version almost immediately and then just spend time tweaking some of the areas that didn't turn out as efficient as they would like.

Sure but Apple still had to release Rosetta (a PowerPC emulator, though it was somewhat better than a straight emulator). And I had apps used Rosetta for many years after the transition. Not every app was updated within months, far from it. Apple got away with it because Intel CPUs had a performance advantage that helped 'pay' for the emulator performance cost.

 

[unplugme71]

This is awesome for Intel. These delays were horrible.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Sure but Apple still had to release Rosetta (a PowerPC emulator, though it was somewhat better than a straight emulator). And I had apps used Rosetta for many years after the transition. Not every app was updated within months, far from it. Apple got away with it because Intel CPUs had a performance advantage that helped 'pay' for the emulator performance cost.

And there lies one of the biggest differences between then and now. Back then some developers used Xcode, but A LOT didn't. In order to avoid penalizing them, they created Rosetta. These days, most OSX developers are using Xcode so they all get the benefit of whatever Apple makes available during compile. For those that aren't using Xcode, well, those few have a hard decision to make, just like back then. Some developers never released an Intel version because it wasn't worth it to them.

 

[throAU]

Yup thats what they said when Macs used PPC.

Going from PPC to intel was an intelligent decision for the Mac.

Ditching the ability to run the same low level optimized code, using the same compiler optimization knowledge as as 90% of the computing landscape for questionable power per watt improvement (especially when you already have a product line in that space for people who don't care what architecture runs their stuff) is brain damaged at best, and suicidal at worst.

For an idea of how well an ARM based Mac will do, see Windows RT.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

For an idea of how well an ARM based Mac will do, see Windows RT.

Not really. Microsoft made all the wrong choices with Windows RT. They locked the software delivery to an App Store that had very little content and very little to fill it with (as they didn't have a developer solution as robust as what Apple had created for Xcode developers during the PPC to Intel transition).

Apple's already shown that their App Store would have way more content AND that they know how to provide elegant developer solutions, so those two failings won't apply.

 

[manu chao]

And there lies one of the biggest differences between then and now. Back then some developers used Xcode, but A LOT didn't. In order to avoid penalizing them, they created Rosetta. These days, most OSX developers are using Xcode so they all get the benefit of whatever Apple makes available during compile. For those that aren't using Xcode, well, those few have a hard decision to make, just like back then.

Really? What people used before Xcode was CodeWarrior and when Apple announced the switch to Intel in mid-2005, CodeWarrior was already very much on the way out.

Some developers never released an Intel version because it wasn't worth it to them.

And that would be different with a switch to ARM?

 

[kingtj]

Exactly.... The people saying Apple needs to put the Macs on ARM processors, moving forward, seem to be forgetting that Intel has had a closer competitor selling to the entire Windows market for YEARS; AMD. And even AMD has struggled to manufacture a CPU that's competitive with Intel's offerings. (Essentially, they compete only on price these days -- offering CPUs that realistically only have half the number of cores they claim on their boxes, due to the way they define a "core", and lots of issues with heat on the highest clock speed models.)

I think the ARM is great for the iOS devices Apple uses it in now, but won't be nearly as effective in a full-blown computer that needs to be able to dual-boot into Windows and OS X and handle the additional demands that a computer will place on it. (I/O alone is a big one. Think how many USB and/or Firewire and/or Thunderbolt devices you've got attached to a typical PC or Mac. Then think how many you connect to an iPhone or iPad simultaneously.)

Going from PPC to intel was an intelligent decision for the Mac.

Ditching the ability to run the same low level optimized code, using the same compiler optimization knowledge as as 90% of the computing landscape for questionable power per watt improvement (especially when you already have a product line in that space for people who don't care what architecture runs their stuff) is brain damaged at best, and suicidal at worst.

For an idea of how well an ARM based Mac will do, see Windows RT.

 

[v0lume4]

I never thought I would say this given my last experiences with Windows (XP until Vista then I switch to Mac), but this laptop is AWESOME. Premium build, Windows 10 is stable (haven't seen a blue screen or system hang up yet) and familiar due to my XP days.

I'm coming from a 2012 iMac and wanted more portability; and since the iMac was just laptop parts anyway...

Feels fast with i7 Skylake, 512GB M.2 SSD, 16GB DDR5 faster RAM, and a killer GPU (however, I'm still playing Diablo 3/Starcraft 2 trilogy, lol). All for $1,928 at the Microsoft Store w 2-year Microsoft Laptop Care. The comparable rMBP with Applecare would cost me $2,848! Sorry Apple, I can't justify the $928 premium on a 2015 machine with a 2013 CPU and slower internals.

Since the new 21.5" iMacs no longer come with dedicated GPU's and rMBP hasn't been updated in close to a year, I had to move to the Dell. Since this is Dell's bread and butter, I'll know they'll keep up with the latest tech (even if I only buy every 3-4 years). The reviews aren't lying when they said this is the laptop to beat.

I'll stick with Apple for iPhones/iPads since that's all they seem to care about these days. But the Samsung Note 5/Galaxy S7 is really nice...

That sounds awesome. Thank you for the reply! Like you, I'm beginning to have a difficult time justifying the "Apple tax" for a seemingly similar/worse laptop than Windows offerings. Some of the people on these forums have beef with Windows, however I use it every day at work and have 0 issues. It does the same things as my Mac at home. I wouldn't mind switching to it.

I'm actually considering building a desktop PC for the heavy lifting at home, but I really need a new laptop so I may just go all in on a laptop. I still love MacBooks, and will probably get a rMBP for my next laptop, but I'll tell you--the decision isn't as easy as it used to be. Some of these Windows laptops these days are killing it.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Really? What people used before Xcode was CodeWarrior and when Apple announced the switch to Intel in mid-2005, CodeWarrior was already very much on the way out.

The point is that developers today are in a much better position given where Xcode is now compared to them. And Apple is better at making things as transparent as possible (want to utilize metal? Set this and recompile). The applications written today also use Apple's more modern API's meaning that Apple has more control on how they compile on the back end. There's always going to be some "coding to the metal" but Apple has worked to make that the exception.

And this: Bitcode
"What does that actually mean in practice? Based on what we know, the new process means that app developers will need to make no changes to their app if Apple suddenly changed processor architecture."
Someone mentioned this elsewhere in the thread, but just Googled it today. I'd say this puts developers in a MUCH better position than during the last transition.

And that would be different with a switch to ARM?

Nope, it would be EXACTLY the same. Some developers may not WANT to recompile their apps to continue to be on the App Store and will be delisted. Just as Apple does now. For those not on the store, they may be doing something far more interesting OR may find that they have very few active users and they don't want to have to support the transition. In ANY switch, you're going to lose developers as there are those resistant to ANY change. Success depends on how easy Apple makes it for the developers that want to make money on AND continue to support the platform.
[doublepost=1460570320][/doublepost]

Exactly.... The people saying Apple needs to put the Macs on ARM processors, moving forward, seem to be forgetting that Intel has had a closer competitor selling to the entire Windows market for YEARS; AMD. And even AMD has struggled to manufacture a CPU that's competitive with Intel's offerings.

...

I think the ARM is great for the iOS devices Apple uses it in now, but won't be nearly as effective in a full-blown computer that needs to be able to dual-boot into Windows and OS X

AMD is trying to compete against Intel in the whole computer segment. Apple has ZERO formal competition in the "Runs OSX and OSX developed applications" segment. AMD is trying to create a better Intel chip than Intel. Apple just has to create a chip that runs OSX and OSX applications as well as a current Intel offering. I've helped to set up friends with OSX computers (they switched from Windows) and even created Bootcamp partitions in case they needed them. No one has ever needed them. So, to say that a computer that runs OSX and OSX developed applications NEEDS to be able to dual-boot into Windows is not a need, but a strongly held desire by a small portion of the user base.

 

[geachy92]

I'm in the market for a new computer right now, and MacBook Pros are off my list because the CPUs are so out of date.

Currently, I have a 2010 MacBook Pro, it was released shortly after Intel's Arrandale microarchitecture. I purchased it shortly after it was released, and It's lasted me for nearly 6 years now (would probably last longer if the discrete GPU hadn't died).

If I bought one of the current MacBook Pros I would be starting out nearly 2 years in the hole (I'm looking for a 13" - if I went 15" it'd be nearly3 years in the hole).

If you upgrade your computer every 2 years it's not a big deal, but for those of us who like to hold on to our computers for a long time, we would very much like Apple to stay current with Intel.

Are you me?

 

[Cole Slaw]

I don't think this will really affect Apple's updates to their computers.
It's not like they bother updating their stuff on a regular basis anyway. Some computer/display products go years without any updates or changes.
Computers are just not much of a priority for Apple.

 

[recoil80]

AMD is trying to compete against Intel in the whole computer segment. Apple has ZERO formal competition in the "Runs OSX and OSX developed applications" segment. AMD is trying to create a better Intel chip than Intel. Apple just has to create a chip that runs OSX and OSX applications as well as a current Intel offering. I've helped to set up friends with OSX computers (they switched from Windows) and even created Bootcamp partitions in case they needed them. No one has ever needed them. So, to say that a computer that runs OSX and OSX developed applications NEEDS to be able to dual-boot into Windows is not a need, but a strongly held desire by a small portion of the user base.

Apple is making money on iOS devices, most of them are iPhones.
The Mac is only a small percentage of their business today, and is going to be even less relevant in the future.
I don't think Apple is really interested in Windows users, so if moving to ARM means the end of bootcamp I don't see them worrying about that.
The switch can be slow and start with the Macbook, then move to Macbook pros and continue to the Mac.
GPU power is important today and will be even more important in the future, more than CPU, so as long as you provide your SoC with a monster GPU you're good to go. Intel processors are faster today, but the M version that powers the fanless Macbook isn't so fast compared to A9X, so at least for a fanless Mac Apple is quite close to having its cpu on the Mac.
I think they're getting there, not this year but in a few years. We all know about Apple's obsession with thin products, so I bet they're looking forward to having their Macs (at least the laptops) thinner and to do so they need fanless CPUs.

 

[Razeus]

That sounds awesome. Thank you for the reply! Like you, I'm beginning to have a difficult time justifying the "Apple tax" for a seemingly similar/worse laptop than Windows offerings. Some of the people on these forums have beef with Windows, however I use it every day at work and have 0 issues. It does the same things as my Mac at home. I wouldn't mind switching to it.

I'm actually considering building a desktop PC for the heavy lifting at home, but I really need a new laptop so I may just go all in on a laptop. I still love MacBooks, and will probably get a rMBP for my next laptop, but I'll tell you--the decision isn't as easy as it used to be. Some of these Windows laptops these days are killing it.

Ya, I use Windows 7 at work (I'm an accountant) by default. I leave my work computer on all the time and it never has an issue (but I suppose the IT guy is handling the backend). Windows 10 is excellent and will only get better. It stays out of the way and allows me to work. It's fast, but of course this is my first SSD based computer. It's handles everything I've thrown at it well. No hangs, no crashed.

The only thing I really had to do was go to the Dell website and get all the latest updates, but that's par for the course on Windows. Apple has the update system down cold.

I do enjoy the Mac OS X, but not when Apple can't keep up with hardware. Plus I have a side gig doing bookkeeping & tax for a couple of clients, so getting into Windows/Quickbooks/Excel is a must. At least until I can convince all my clients to switch to Quickbooks Online, then I'll re-consider a rMBP. Having to remember to switch OS's was kind of a hassle. Plus Apple can end Bootcamp at any time and I can't have that.


Pro Tip: Never switch laptops/OS's during tax season...

 

[Technarchy]

I don't think this will really affect Apple's updates to their computers.
It's not like they bother updating their stuff on a regular basis anyway. Some computer/display products go years without any updates or changes.
Computers are just not much of a priority for Apple.

I think it's a priority, but Apple has no interest in following the Windows PC market strategy because it's a massive waste of money.

It's not about Intel. It's about what makes sense for the market segment. It serves no purpose to chase every piece of marginally updated silicon every 6 months, when people don't even bother updating their Macs all that often.

 

[throAU]

That sounds awesome. Thank you for the reply! Like you, I'm beginning to have a difficult time justifying the "Apple tax" for a seemingly similar/worse laptop than Windows offerings. Some of the people on these forums have beef with Windows, however I use it every day at work and have 0 issues. It does the same things as my Mac at home. I wouldn't mind switching to it.

I'm actually considering building a desktop PC for the heavy lifting at home, but I really need a new laptop so I may just go all in on a laptop. I still love MacBooks, and will probably get a rMBP for my next laptop, but I'll tell you--the decision isn't as easy as it used to be. Some of these Windows laptops these days are killing it.

I use windows every day at work (surface pro 4 running windows 10, so MS hardware running MS software) and there's a huge laundry list of issues I have with it.

- UI dpi scaling between 2 different monitor sizes plain doesn't work and makes things worse
- wake from sleep is unreliable, the Surface will need to be hard powered off after closing the lid on a regular basis, losing anything open
- regular video driver crashes
- 6 hr battery life, if that
- takes an eternity to charge
- more UI scaling problems with various applications - buttons not rendered inside dialog boxes (e.g., vSphere, SCCM, Cisco ASDM, etc.)
- single threaded UI that will freeze if one app is doing something and causing the machine to be busy
- crappy SSD performance compared to my 13" Retina Macbook
- Windows still does a really bad job of maintaining/recovering network connectivity when switching between wifi/docked ethernet - turn on wifi, undock, outlook craps out and needs to be re-opened
- i could go on, and on...

On paper, some of the windows laptops these days are "killing it" but believe me, if you use them long term back to back with a Mac they're just nowhere close in many areas.

 

[Ethosik]

I use windows every day at work (surface pro 4 running windows 10, so MS hardware running MS software) and there's a huge laundry list of issues I have with it.

- UI dpi scaling between 2 different monitor sizes plain doesn't work and makes things worse
- wake from sleep is unreliable, the Surface will need to be hard powered off after closing the lid on a regular basis, losing anything open
- regular video driver crashes
- 6 hr battery life, if that
- takes an eternity to charge
- more UI scaling problems with various applications - buttons not rendered inside dialog boxes (e.g., vSphere, SCCM, Cisco ASDM, etc.)
- single threaded UI that will freeze if one app is doing something and causing the machine to be busy
- crappy SSD performance compared to my 13" Retina Macbook
- Windows still does a really bad job of maintaining/recovering network connectivity when switching between wifi/docked ethernet - turn on wifi, undock, outlook craps out and needs to be re-opened
- i could go on, and on...

On paper, some of the windows laptops these days are "killing it" but believe me, if you use them long term back to back with a Mac they're just nowhere close in many areas.

I absolutely cannot stand Windows UI scaling. I got rid of my Surface Pro because stuff just looked absolutely horrible. Anything now a UWP was blurry and difficult to read.

 

[Val-kyrie]

Do I need to dual-boot? No. Emulate, yes. The appeal of the Intel Mac when I switched was that I could run my Windows-only software in an emulator alongside my Mac programs. I doubt that will be possible with an ARM-based Mac. And yes, I need to run this Windows-only software for my job.

The point is that developers today are in a much better position given where Xcode is now compared to them. And Apple is better at making things as transparent as possible (want to utilize metal? Set this and recompile). The applications written today also use Apple's more modern API's meaning that Apple has more control on how they compile on the back end. There's always going to be some "coding to the metal" but Apple has worked to make that the exception.

And this: Bitcode
"What does that actually mean in practice? Based on what we know, the new process means that app developers will need to make no changes to their app if Apple suddenly changed processor architecture."
Someone mentioned this elsewhere in the thread, but just Googled it today. I'd say this puts developers in a MUCH better position than during the last transition.


Nope, it would be EXACTLY the same. Some developers may not WANT to recompile their apps to continue to be on the App Store and will be delisted. Just as Apple does now. For those not on the store, they may be doing something far more interesting OR may find that they have very few active users and they don't want to have to support the transition. In ANY switch, you're going to lose developers as there are those resistant to ANY change. Success depends on how easy Apple makes it for the developers that want to make money on AND continue to support the platform.
[doublepost=1460570320][/doublepost]

AMD is trying to compete against Intel in the whole computer segment. Apple has ZERO formal competition in the "Runs OSX and OSX developed applications" segment. AMD is trying to create a better Intel chip than Intel. Apple just has to create a chip that runs OSX and OSX applications as well as a current Intel offering. I've helped to set up friends with OSX computers (they switched from Windows) and even created Bootcamp partitions in case they needed them. No one has ever needed them. So, to say that a computer that runs OSX and OSX developed applications NEEDS to be able to dual-boot into Windows is not a need, but a strongly held desire by a small portion of the user base.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Do I need to dual-boot? No. Emulate, yes. The appeal of the Intel Mac when I switched was that I could run my Windows-only software in an emulator alongside my Mac programs. I doubt that will be possible with an ARM-based Mac. And yes, I need to run this Windows-only software for my job.

I want to make it clear that I'm not saying that NO ONE NEEDS TO DO THIS. I'm just saying, looking at the HUGE numbers of Macs selling every day, to people who don't know what an Intel is, who think that if you want to run Windows applications, you need a WIndows computer, if the next Mac-whatever system were to leave off the bullet point of "compatible with Windows", they wouldn't know or care. Even going to the current webpage for the MacBook tech specs, where apple USED to put which version of Windows it was compatible or mention BootCamp, there's NO mention now.

Everyone that's currently using BootCamp, currently emulating an entire world of Intel compatible OS's, currently running Windows Only software in other ways, I don't believe that's a market of a sufficient size for Apple to cater to in the future. If they will antagonize their own OSX using Pro users, it's not a stretch to think that the same will happen to those that need full Intel OS compatibility IF the needs suits them.

 

[CFreymarc]

I said hello to a Dell XPS 15 over the weekend. We had a good run Apple.

Being a Apple developer, having a Mac is essential. But yes, I also have a Dell XPS 15 (I cannot stand laptops with a number pad and off center keyboard) running Windows 10. I work with them side-by-side on most jobs for different support situations.

 

[Keirasplace]

Do I need to dual-boot? No. Emulate, yes. The appeal of the Intel Mac when I switched was that I could run my Windows-only software in an emulator alongside my Mac programs. I doubt that will be possible with an ARM-based Mac. And yes, I need to run this Windows-only software for my job.

85% of people buying Mac are NOT YOU, or even LIKE YOU. Good grief, is this ever tiresome.
For people the need X86, they'll probably keep selling them until they can make up most of the difference (which won't happen within next 5 years probably), or this market becomes so small they can just disregard it. When it reaches around 5% of everyone buying a Mac, is when they'll think of that.

I'd bet 99% people buying the lower end Apple machines never really need to run X86 Apps of any kind.
"Screwing" the 1% would not bother them at all, if they extend their market by cutting prices and boosting performance (tighter integration and more value for money for chip they make themselves) AND boost profits (they keep some of the extra margin they gain for themselves) at the same time on those low end machines by going ARM.

It's certain that they got such devices running OSX on ARM in house.
I believe they will release one within 2 years.

 

[Val-kyrie]

85% of people buying Mac are NOT YOU, or even LIKE YOU. Good grief, is this ever tiresome.
For people the need X86, they'll probably keep selling them until they can make up most of the difference (which won't happen within next 5 years probably), or this market becomes so small they can just disregard it. When it reaches around 5% of everyone buying a Mac, is when they'll think of that.

I'd bet 99% people buying the lower end Apple machines never really need to run X86 Apps of any kind.
"Screwing" the 1% would not bother them at all, if they extend their market by cutting prices and boosting performance (tighter integration and more value for money for chip they make themselves) AND boost profits (they keep some of the extra margin they gain for themselves) at the same time on those low end machines by going ARM.

It's certain that they got such devices running OSX on ARM in house.
I believe they will release one within 2 years.

Both of my parents own their own Macs for their business and both also rely on emulation for Windows-only software. I also personally know several other business owners in the same boat. None are going to come to this forum to state this to you; however, you are also probably correct that Apple may eventually shift away from x86 when they think the crossover market is too small. I am still waiting to see if ARM really can catch up to, keep pace with, and even surpass the continuous processing power per watt performance which Intel has achieved.