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

[throAU]

The advent of iPhone, iPad and ARM architecture hit Intel so hard they are still feeling the pain. ARM took advantage of Intel inability to react to new ways to user computers.
I hope now that Apple has its own chip design branch, they make a new architecture transition to ARM for the Mac line like they did from Motorola to Intel.

Apple moving the Mac wholesale to ARM would kill a huge number of Mac sales overnight.

I for one would not buy an ARM based Mac, and as other(s) have posted above, the switch to x86 was instrumental in me deciding to switch.

Once ARM has a CPU that has the same capabilities as intel (currently, they do not, nowhere even close) then we can talk about how intel are failing. And even if they do that, an ARM cpu will simply not have the compatibility with the range of software and OSes that intel has.

ARM on MAC is a non-starter.

 

[MarcoB]

I always thought that the X in OS X was for the X86 architecture, although many said it was because Uni*.
Maybe the new Mac OS name is related to Apple dropping Intel in favor of ARM.
What will WWDC 2016 reveal to us?
[doublepost=1460430987][/doublepost]Today Apple has enough money to buy an x86 license from Intel and have it inside the processor for a smooth transition.

It will leave Apple in good position with Intel, when in 10 years they will the quantum chips.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

And watch apple's share of the computer market go back to 5%.

I don't understand this. The vast majority of people buying Macs now don't know what processor is in it, they just want to know if the emails, and the internets, and the facebooks will work. And those activities really don't need an Intel processor. If Apple releases a platform that can "Facebook" as well as they currently do, there's no reason to believe that sales will fall by a significant amount.

Sure there are those that NEED to virtualize, but I'd imagine there's more mac users on using Facebook in a given month than there are Mac users that utilize virtualization by a wide margin.
[doublepost=1460431553][/doublepost]

ARM on MAC is a non-starter.

It's a starter, it will just leave certain small segments of the mac using universe behind. For every 5 people who can answer "No" to the question "Would you purchase the next Apple device if it didn't utilize the x86-64 instruction set?", there's 100 that will answer, "I don't know, but I guess as long as I can still get to Facebook and watch cat videos on YouTube..."

 

[dampfnudel]

And watch apple's share of the computer market go back to 5%.

Those of us who remember those days have no interest into returning to them.

They weren't The good ol' days, they were the dark ages.

I'm sure some people will call it the "good ol' days", but of course they were younger so that may have something to do with it. Anyway, there may come a time when Apple feels Intel isn't "up to the task" and decides to take a different route. Only time, Intel's ingenuity and the future of iOS/OSX will determine what Apple does in the future. If iOS and OSX merge someday into one with desktop/mobile modes, who knows? The iPad Pro seems to be a preview of what Apple would like the computing landscape to look like in a few years.

 

[JDW]

So what? We don't recall major "blow my mind" style CPU updates in YEARS. Each tick and tock passes us something rather lackluster. It's better than nothing, but now we hear those tiny bumps will come at a slower speed. No real surprise, seeing they are running up against the limits of miniaturization tech.

The solution? Decent GPUs. Make the iMac thicker to accommodate a true Desktop class CPU, and eliminate mobile GPUs. Or if Apple refuses to do that, then add Thunderbolt 3 so a GPU box (capable of holding multiple desktop class GPUs) can be externally added. Then make sure every Mac app takes advantage of GPU speeds. That would also kick the VR guys off their high horse, who currently deride the Mac as being incapable of using the latest VR tech.

 

[MarcoB]

Apple need the x86 code to run today's Mac software base. As soon as the softwares are adjusted (compiled) to the new Architecture x86 won't be needed anymore. Maybe only to run old versions of Mac software and Windows.

IBM is already using Swift and I thinking Microsoft is think to use it too.

 

[throAU]

It's a starter, it will just leave certain small segments of the mac using universe behind. For every 5 people who can answer "No" to the question "Would you purchase the next Apple device if it didn't utilize the x86-64 instruction set?", there's 100 that will answer, "I don't know, but I guess as long as I can still get to Facebook and watch cat videos on YouTube..."

Those people are covered by the iPad.
[doublepost=1460431918][/doublepost]

Apple need the x86 code to run today's Mac software base. As soon as the softwares are adjusted (compiled) to the new Architecture x86 won't be needed anymore. Maybe only to run old versions of Mac software and Windows.

IBM is already using Swift and I think Microsoft is think to use it too.

Yup, x86 compatibility is important. And ARM drops that for questionable / no performance improvement. It's a non-starter. Let me know when there are ARM processors available with the same power as a 20 core Xeon...

 

[MarcoB]

Apple didn't merge yet iOS and OS X, because ARM and Intel are different beasts, different compilers for each.
As soon as Apple goes all ARM, the two OSs will merge. I think Pro iPads will need a Pro OS to unleash more power to devices.
[doublepost=1460432463][/doublepost]One thing I know for sure, future will be great.

 

[dampfnudel]

Apple didn't merge yet iOS and OS X, because ARM and Intel are different beasts, different compilers for each.
As soon as Apple goes all ARM, the two OSs will merge. I think Pro iPads will need a Pro OS to unleash more power to devices.

I think Apple would love to bring everything together. I think the majority of current users would go along for the ride.

 

[bsimpsen]

I would be surprised. The x86 change allowed them to gain many customers who would have never considered macs otherwise (myself included). If they switch to ARM, I'm going back to PCs.

Those who've been moving to iOS from Windows (quite a few if you believe Apple) don't care about the underlying CPU. If Apple offers ARM based Macs, iOS users would find them attractive, and there are quite a few of those.

 

[wozmatic]

awesome, next macbook pro coming 2036

 

[bsimpsen]

Those people are covered by the iPad.
[doublepost=1460431918][/doublepost]

Yup, x86 compatibility is important. And ARM drops that for questionable / no performance improvement. It's a non-starter. Let me know when there are ARM processors available with the same power as a 20 core Xeon...

Intel's margins are around 65%. TSMC's margins are around 45-50%. That 15-20% margin difference goes into Apple's pocket if they replace Intel with Ax. That's a significant amount of money to invest in performance improvement. And comparisons of Intel and ARM miss the fact that a chip like the A9X costs a fraction of what Intel charges for an i7. If you compare performance/$ the A series chips look very good. If Apple budgets Intel level money for an ARM chip, we'll see something far more powerful than the A9X.

 

[throAU]

Intel's margins are around 65%. TSMC's margins are around 45-50%. That 15-20% margin difference goes into Apple's pocket if they replace Intel with Ax. That's a significant amount of money to invest in performance improvement. And comparisons of Intel and ARM miss the fact that a chip like the A9X costs a fraction of what Intel charges for an i7. If you compare performance/$ the A series chips look very good. If Apple budgets Intel level money for an ARM chip, we'll see something far more powerful than the A9X.

Conversely, that means intel have 15-20% margin they can drop their pants on if they want to keep apple's business, which will further increase the power: price advantage in intel's favour.

And that's IF Apple decide to entertain the idea of ARM based Macs. Which i reckon would be suicidal for the mac market. The fact that the mac runs x86 is a huge reason why i have one of them in addition to iPads.

 

[macsrcool1234]

I don't understand this. The vast majority of people buying Macs now don't know what processor is in it, they just want to know if the emails, and the internets, and the facebooks will work. And those activities really don't need an Intel processor. If Apple releases a platform that can "Facebook" as well as they currently do, there's no reason to believe that sales will fall by a significant amount.

Sure there are those that NEED to virtualize, but I'd imagine there's more mac users on using Facebook in a given month than there are Mac users that utilize virtualization by a wide margin.
[doublepost=1460431553][/doublepost]
It's a starter, it will just leave certain small segments of the mac using universe behind. For every 5 people who can answer "No" to the question "Would you purchase the next Apple device if it didn't utilize the x86-64 instruction set?", there's 100 that will answer, "I don't know, but I guess as long as I can still get to Facebook and watch cat videos on YouTube..."

When all of their software stops working, they will notice.

 

[Mr. Dee]

I think the CPU has taken a back seat to what really matters these days:
Faster PCI-e SSDs
Faster RAM - there are no DDR4 Macs yet, neither are there MacBook's that can support up to 32 GBs of RAM.
Faster, more powerful graphics
Higher resolution displays

The fact is most software is not even written to harness the power of these multi-core CPUs.

I think there are opportunities for innovation:
- longer battery life
- faster network protocols
- Applications that can actually use all of that CPU power

 

[Keirasplace]

Intel's margins are around 65%. TSMC's margins are around 45-50%. That 15-20% margin difference goes into Apple's pocket if they replace Intel with Ax. That's a significant amount of money to invest in performance improvement. And comparisons of Intel and ARM miss the fact that a chip like the A9X costs a fraction of what Intel charges for an i7. If you compare performance/$ the A series chips look very good. If Apple budgets Intel level money for an ARM chip, we'll see something far more powerful than the A9X.

Apple buys the high end chips, considering their price compared to a similar A9, I expect Apple to save a lot more money than that.

 

[bjet767]

Maybe it's already been written here, but OSX can't go to ARM overnight.

OS X Apps/programs are complied to run only on Intel processors. X86, on OSX. Basically no current OS X program will run on an ARM based computer. Unless, there is an emulator and that slows the system way down. iOS apps are tested on OS X macs through a simulator which emulates an iOS device, via Xcode.

 

[iZac]

Somewhere in a window-less Apple lab, development on the A12 ARM powered iBook is being escalated.

 

[8692574]

I think the CPU has taken a back seat to what really matters these days:
Faster PCI-e SSDs
Faster RAM - there are no DDR4 Macs yet, neither are there MacBook's that can support up to 32 GBs of RAM.
Faster, more powerful graphics
Higher resolution displays

The fact is most software is not even written to harness the power of these multi-core CPUs.

I think there are opportunities for innovation:
- longer battery life
- faster network protocols
- Applications that can actually use all of that CPU power

Exactly, there's more than CPU power to be unleashed nowadays, battery being the first and optimizing software is another important one.

The title as always is clickbait, it is not Intal that is leaving Apple uncertain on what to do with the Mac, there is plenty to do, it is a good excuse for them to "wait and see".

 

[Serban]

i don't think its very problem with no tick tock these days. Apple can silent update one year (after the cpu update) with new ssd or dgpu or maybe ram

 

[Mums]

Man, the update cycles for Macs are awful.
MacPro and Mac Mini are completely forgotten. MBP, iMacs and MacBooks are a bit better but still pretty long.
Just look at the Mac Buyer's guide on MR and it is pretty depressing.

Didn't Apple pretty much state at the last conference that it wants to phase out personal computers? I think it's enforced socialism - all consumer devices no producer tools.

 

[haruhiko]

Apple will not move OS X to ARM. But they will try to make the ARM iPads more like MacBooks, and let these two product lines compete against each other. Apple is not afraid of cannibalization as long as both are their products.

And somebody pointed out that ARM CPU's performance is "nowhere near" that of Intel CPUs, which is not true. The A9X is not weaker than Intel's Core M when you compare the benchmark scores. Benchmark scores may not be totally reliable, but the important thing is that, after years of stagnant CPU upgrades, Intel's lead on performance is not that far away anymore.

 

[recoil80]

They are getting there. Not quit ready but they are getting there.

I'm pretty sure about that, but not this year and not for the entire product line.
iPad pro is not far from the fanless Macbook if you consider the cpu performance, so they're getting there

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Somewhere in a window-less Apple lab, development on the A12 ARM powered iBook is being escalated.

Windowless in more ways than one

 

[oopsroger]

I don't think there is uncertainty. Apple is not updating the Mac no matter what.