They don't need to port their apps. 99% of what users what are already on the App Store. Yes, the iOS app store.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Mac With Apple-Designed Arm Processor Coming in First Half of 2021
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
They don't need to port their apps. 99% of what users what are already on the App Store. Yes, the iOS app store.
This is a bit too optimistic.
Mac Catalyst doesn't support any deprecated API since iOS 13. That means a lot of iOS app will not run on Mac Catalyst unless they decide to clean up their code and in some case break compatibility with iOS 12 or earlier.
By the next 18 month I guess more app will support this and the situation would be better.
And I just want Xcode on ARM so I can show away my Intel machine once and for all.
I didn't explain myself very well in what I meant, sorry. You have a nice description of the real difference there.
My problem with the rumor is that this has been said every year for the past five years.
Call me when they are shipping something that really works.
Call me when they have a desktop that rivals the MacPro they just released.
Call me when the emulation works with no impact to x86 performance. Because, let's be real here, this requires everyone to go out and buy new software if emulation isn't working. it also means that apps that are no longer supported or updated, people will have no option to use their older software.
But, this says nothing about discontinuing existing x86.
Maybe they develop a line of ultralight machines to augment the iPad Pro.
Call me when they are shipping something that really works.
Call me when they have a desktop that rivals the MacPro they just released.
Call me when the emulation works with no impact to x86 performance. Because, let's be real here, this requires everyone to go out and buy new software if emulation isn't working. it also means that apps that are no longer supported or updated, people will have no option to use their older software.
But, this says nothing about discontinuing existing x86.
Maybe they develop a line of ultralight machines to augment the iPad Pro.
Makes perfect sense. Apple has some very bright people in their silicon units. As bright or brighter than the people at Intel or AMD. In fact a lot of them are ex-Intel/AMD/Nvidia people. And given more resources and more freedom, and freed from the constraints of supporting every computer manufacturer out there. Imagine if your jobs was limited to meeting the needs of only 3 or 4 customers.
Also, from the founding days of Apple, the company has wanted to control every aspect of their systems. This goes back to Steve Jobs' Sand factory idea. Silicon sand goes in one end, computers come out the other. All controlled by Apple. No partners to get in the way.
Also, from the founding days of Apple, the company has wanted to control every aspect of their systems. This goes back to Steve Jobs' Sand factory idea. Silicon sand goes in one end, computers come out the other. All controlled by Apple. No partners to get in the way.
This has nothing to do with catalyst.
If you use Xcode to make an existing mac app, in almost every case you will be able to hit a button and compile to ARM. It doesn't involve catalyst. Steve Troughton-Smith already demonstrated it can be done easily.
"No partners to get in the way"
The exception being 3rd party developers, which is essential.
Of course, but not all will be ported and there will be some time in between when the ones that will be ported and when they are actually ported. (even Mac app store apps)
Mac mean macOS not iOS.
Apple decide to not support any deprecated iOS APIs on Mac Catalyst (UIKit for Mac). They even mark x86_64 simulator binary ABI not compatible with Mac Catalyst.
This is a hint that they will not support iOS apps out of the box for future Mac.
Compile to ARM is not related to this as I can imagine AppKit will support ARM just like how UIKit support x86_64. Source code compatibility is always there since arm64 transitioning.
Sure. But not a good enough reason to put in an emulator (and presumably have to pay AMD and Intel license fees)
3rd party developers that use Apple APIs for their applications sure. Not hardware vendors (for example Intel) which hamstring Apple and prevent innovating at Apple's pace.
Last edited:
Ah, I see. I misunderstood what you were trying to say.
But you also won't need catalyst, in all likelihood, for iOS apps. Presumably, MacOS can include the entire runtime in a sandbox and not need that sort of translation. But perhaps they'll do it with some sort of future catalyst. Hard to predict yet.
this.
yes exactly.
it will be an iPad that has, however, a GUI that uses a mouse (not in just an Assisted way).
i want this machine.
new line ups:
x86 Mac Pro, iMac, Macbook Pro, Macbook (entry level for college types)
ARM Macbook Air, iPad Pro, iPad, iPhone
It wasn't even Intel's work. XScale came from Digital Equipment Corporation as part of an anti-trust settlement, along with some other DEC pieces, particularly compilers. The original chip, the StrongARM, was designed in collaboration with Apple for the Newton.
If Apple's ARM processor can match(or better yet, outdo) Intel's performance in "heavy duty" number-crunching real-world tasks, it would be an interesting proposition. (Tasks such as image/sound/video editing, encoding/decoding).
I suspect it would be easier to "go wide"(more cores) with the lower TDP of ARMs in general as well, which could offset Intel's advantage in single-thread performance?
I suspect it would be easier to "go wide"(more cores) with the lower TDP of ARMs in general as well, which could offset Intel's advantage in single-thread performance?
Mostly correct for laptops but don't forget about the part where AMD is absolutely crushing Intel in the desktop and server classes. Intel is a bit lost at the moment.
Interesting, how so many people automatically assume it would be a notebook (granted: the article’s picture leads people that way). It could as well be a new desktop machine below the current Mac mini, targeting home users with less demanding workflows or perhaps Enterprise users.
But even if it’s indeed a Notebook, I doubt that Apple will replace the MacBook Pro just yet. It’d probably rather be an entry-level device to test the waters.
Low-demand home users won’t need much more than a few productivity apps, which should be easily available. And in Enterprise environments the trend is increasingly going towards cloud-based and browser-based applications. Both scenarios would work well even without dedicated x86 Software.
The few loud voices in this thread represent a minority, which Apple surely will support for quite a while longer. But they seem to be skating to where the puck is going to be.
But even if it’s indeed a Notebook, I doubt that Apple will replace the MacBook Pro just yet. It’d probably rather be an entry-level device to test the waters.
Low-demand home users won’t need much more than a few productivity apps, which should be easily available. And in Enterprise environments the trend is increasingly going towards cloud-based and browser-based applications. Both scenarios would work well even without dedicated x86 Software.
The few loud voices in this thread represent a minority, which Apple surely will support for quite a while longer. But they seem to be skating to where the puck is going to be.
People: Apple should make their own processors
Apple: That’s a good idea we'll do that
People: Wait what no you can’t do that. If you do that I refuse to ever buy another Apple product again 😂😂😂😂
Apple: That’s a good idea we'll do that
People: Wait what no you can’t do that. If you do that I refuse to ever buy another Apple product again 😂😂😂😂
One thing for sure, bring the silicon design in house frees the designers to think what is best for Apple. And not get stuck with a compromise chip that also must also meet the needs of Company X and Y.
My best guess is the first ARM-based Mac will be designed for the education market. Apple lost major share in what was once a true stronghold for them and price was a major factor in their decline. With a new ARM-based Mac, Apple may have an ace in the hole for getting back into education. They should have better control of cost and hence price, the need for things like Bootcamp are essentially non-existent, performance needs are minor compared to battery life, and complex software is rarely used.
Why would the first ARM Mac make a splash with education market? It'll likely still be expensive and not have the classroom/device management tools that made Google for Education a hit.
And yet iPads are insanely popular in education.
The CPU isn't what drives costs. List price is around $300 for a typical Intel CPU in a $1300 laptop, and Apple gets hefty discounts. Cost is driven by aluminum housings, complex shaped batteries for thinness, expensive wide-gamut high-DPI IPS screens, fast SSD storage, lower-volume LPDDR RAM, big glass touchpads with haptics, backlit keyboards. Going to ARM doesn't change any of this.