Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Totally agree with you. Bootcamp is part of Apple computers since 2005 (or so). Cannot be thrown in garbage. Its essential for many users out there.
Unfortunately, to Apple, the math is simple.

It sells about 1.5 million Macs a month, and that number is declining. Some fraction (pick your own number) use bootcamp.

Apple sells around 20 million iPhones per month, and about 4 million iPads per month (forgive my rough estimates)

If one out of every 20 non-mac-owners who buys an iOS device each month decides to buy an ARM Mac (because it is more compatible with iOS apps, fits the ecosystem better, has a better form factor, has better battery life, has cellular connectivity, or whatever), Apple more than makes up for any sales it loses as a result of boot camp going away.

And people who use bootcamp are less likely to use Apple's services, etc., so the revenue picture leans even more heavily in favor of jettisoning windows-on-mac users if it means more iOS users will buy Macs.
 
Zhaoxin get it from VIA.
And VIA got it from Cyrix.
The point is as some gurus here, state, Apple can't license Zen CPU... Actually not just can license it, also (don't worth the investment) with huge investment in r&d apple could develop it's 100% own x86-amd64/avx2 compatible CPU.

What is wrong about this focus (apple using it's own CPUs)

While iPhone and iPad sells 200millon units/yr requiring just 2 variation of the same basic core, Macs sells less than 20million units/yr and require at least 3 different basic cores (lp, mainstream, hedt) Wich means at least 9-12 different CPU variations to develop year after year.

A 16nm CPU cost to develop at least 2 million w/o IP licensing, just r/d all this before manufactured a single production CPU. 7nm is said to be 20x more exigent and 5nm still uncharted territory.

A 7nm waffers cost 6x more than a 16nm, a 5nm theoretically should cost 3-4x more than 5nm, and in case switching to GaN substrate is required (likely to reach higher IPC and lower power) it's also adds to the Bill, few projects justify it.

The smarter way to get rid from Intel is to develop it's own semi-custom Zen 2 family, based on current Zen 2 chiplets integrating an Apple-backed custom poisoned I/O module (10nm in Zen2, Apple could pay its 7nm version.

Meanwhile Zen 3 is tipped to debut with that same 5nm process which Apple coincidentally will use (at the same fabs) with it's next generation AX SOC.

Add to the CPU development cost, the cost to migrate macOS and it's app ecosystem, right now apple assumed the cost to migrate redshift to Metal, this won't happen with the miriad macOS apps (non-catalyst).

Only makes sense a MacBook or macbook air running on the same iPad SOC, with only support for catalyst App store apps, no thunderbolt

About thunderbolt, I want to ask to those blatant chip and system integrator "experts" here, where in the world is somebody testing or developing Thunderbolt 3 (or USB 4) with ARM soc ?
 
Apple is said to be moving to Arm-based chips in an effort to make Macs, iPhones, and iPads work together and run the same apps.

Why on Earth would you WANT them to run the same apps? The iPad and iPhones are jokes compared to a Mac in capability. Macs are vastly more powerful through the operating system and not limited to Apple only stores (although Apple sure seems to keep heading to them having a monopoly level CONTROL on Mac apps the way they do with iOS apps).

Apple has also denied for years that they want to merge the platforms. Few have believed them, but they refuse to even admit that a touchscreen feature in the MacOS could be useful.... (refusal to admit design errors is a BAD sign on any platform and Apple has had this in spades over the years).

The bottom line is moving away from Intel (to anything other than AMD which is running circles around Intel right now) is a STUPID decision. Period. No arguments, please. Believe any horse manure you want fanboyzs, but the simple FACT is that Intel compatibility has been a huge boon for the Mac over the years, not only letting it run Windows for those that need it but making it simpler for high-end software makers to make Mac versions a lot easier and thus a lot more LIKELY to have Mac versions in the first place. This will absolutely 100% relegate the Mac to the DUST BIN in the back of the store. NO SOFTWARE = NO NEED FOR A MAC. Get a phone if you want iOS garbage.

In short, it will be the death of Macs. They will be akin to Chromebooks. No one wants or needs them. Absolute GARBAGE. How many really want to go back to the days of PowerPC? Look at the way they just rotted away while Intel ran circles around them. You think Apple is going to stay ahead of Intel and AMD forever? You're DELUSIONAL if you believe that. That's their specialty while Apple tries to do EVERYTHING.

Look at how Apple has ignored the Mac for years on end for refreshes of the Mac Mini and Mac Pro. The TRUTH is Apple doesn't give a DAMN about the Mac. They make very little from it compared to iPhones and this will only lead to an even smaller market share! NO ONE (but fanboyz) want a full blown computer that has NO SOFTWARE. Killing Intel off will mean EXACTLY that as there is not a big enough market share to bother with most software packages and making 10x harder to make a Mac version will do NOTHING to improve that. It will only get worse. If there's some emulator layer, there goes ANY processor speed advantage right out the flipping window making it POINTLESS once again.

Look at how Apple killed most prior market game compatibility with the 32-bit excising. Who wants a Mac now? You have to install Windows just to play 90% of your Steam games because of Apple ASININE decision.

Again, I know you fanboyz want to argue that, but I've seen your moot arguments before and they amount to a waste of time as you lack 100% objectivity on the matter.

I've really liked the Mac over the years and the operating system ran circles around Windows in most areas (other than GPU support) for ages, but Windows 10 has caught up in most areas and even the likelihood of not getting Malware has decreased on the Mac below Windows level for the first time (however inconsequential most of it is). That is because Apple puts their resources on the iPhone (and I don't mean better features, but more SLOW features so you have to keep buying newer hardware to just run a web browser at a decent speed even).

Frankly, I've grown tired of Apple's GREED. Microsoft used to be the worst offender on the playground and bullied everyone around to push their OS to almost Monopoly status. Now Apple's doing everything in its power to play everyone it can from excuses why they cannot (more like will not) move off Lightning to USB3c to creating their own custom GPU libraries (Metal) to now wanting to move the CPU off to something they can control with an IRON GRIP.

FRACK Apple. Steve Jobs would be rolling over in his grave now if he knew how Tim Cook has taken innovation and giving people the tools to be creative and turned it into a corporate juggernaut that is driven purely by profits and control.

Apple has BECOME the new Microsoft except they leverage software to sell hardware instead of the other way around. Meanwhile Microsoft has oddly become a team player, even supporting Linux in areas, something the wouldn't have touched with a 100 foot pole twenty years ago. I'm severely disappointed in what Apple has become.

(Yeah I know the fanboy reply is along the lines of not letting the door hit me on the way out; I have a reply for you guys in mind, but I'll save it since I'm the better person). Enjoy your Apple Mac TOYS because that's all they will be in the future if this rumor is true.
 
Believe any horse manure you want fanboyzs, but the simple FACT is that Intel compatibility has been a huge boon for the Mac over the years, not only letting it run Windows for those that need it but making it simpler for high-end software makers to make Mac versions a lot easier and thus a lot more LIKELY to have Mac versions in the first place. This will absolutely 100% relegate the Mac to the DUST BIN in the back of the store. NO SOFTWARE = NO NEED FOR A MAC. Get a phone if you want iOS garbage.

In short, it will be the death of Macs.

Rant away, but when you calm down take a look at what has become of Mac sales. If Apple does not make the switch to ARM, how long do you think it will be before Apple slaps a keyboard on a 15” iPad, and quits selling Macs entirely?

They can sell 200+ million iPhones for $800-$1000 in a year. How long are they going to put effort into machines that they can’t sell for all that much more than that, and which will soon sell in quantities less than 10 million a year? Something has to change, and practically speaking, this is what will change. They will sell many millions of ”macs” that you hate, and you won’t buy them, but the number of people who will will likely exceed the number of customers they lose (because there just aren’t that many of us Mac users who do more than run Office and a web browser).
 
  • Love
Reactions: Galve2000
because it is more compatible with iOS apps, fits the ecosystem better
How? iOS apps are all inherently "compatible" with running on x86 - the iOS simulator is iOS on x86, not an arm emulation layer. Additionally, Catalyst apps are proof that the architecture difference doesn't prevent iOS apps being re-compiled for x86 Macs - it's very much an issue of API support (which Catalyst aims to provide) and then the general usability issue (i.e. different window modes and input modes, essentially).

And the 'ecosystem' has been multiple-architecture since the turn of the century.

has cellular connectivity
How is that, in any way tied to the CPU? You realise that the cellular connectivity in an iPhone isn't reliant on the ARM CPU right?


Apple more than makes up for any sales it loses as a result of boot camp going away.
Your logic is just flawed in general. You somehow believe that removing compatibility to easily run applications (via a variety of methods) from the OS with a large-majority of the market is going to increase sales to those who are not already using a Mac, for "improvements", none of which are currently precluded because of the use of x86.

And people who use bootcamp are less likely to use Apple's services
Based on what, exactly?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AlumaMac
Maybe you are right. Your numbers seems accurate. But I'm not sure it will be the best move to do.
Me, neither. But I can certainly understand why Apple would do ARM based on those numbers.

And the ARM machines *will* be better in many ways than the x86-64 machines. What’s lost is backward compatibility. And that will be lost over the course of time, anyway (try and run a 10 year old mac app. Are you confident it will work?)
 
You have it backwards. The purpose of ARM is to accelerate Mac adoption and market share.
That's an interesting take... one that I don't see evidence of. I don't see these actions in any way increasing Mac adoption and marketshare.

In the current season of Apple's corporate life, it is leveraging the investment and hard work they did in creating a loyal customer base. They're producing products that allow them to increase the price (while lowering the cost).

During this time, Apple has lowered the bar of expectation. Expectation of their software. Expectation of the build quality of their hardware. With those in motion, it will be easier for them to move to ARM for their Macs.
 
That's an interesting take... one that I don't see evidence of. I don't see these actions in any way increasing Mac adoption and marketshare.

In the current season of Apple's corporate life, it is leveraging the investment and hard work they did in creating a loyal customer base. They're producing products that allow them to increase the price (while lowering the cost).

During this time, Apple has lowered the bar of expectation. Expectation of their software. Expectation of the build quality of their hardware. With those in motion, it will be easier for them to move to ARM for their Macs.

The more that a Mac becomes like an iPad or an iPhone, the more likely it is that iPad and iPhone customers buy macs. Switching to ARM allows flexibility in form factor, much extended battery life, faster performance, increased software compatibility with iOS (including allowing iOS apps to run in modified, the ability of Messages plug ins to run unmodified, etc.), will likely result in cellular-connected options, etc. All of these things mean that even if 1 in 20 iOS/Windows users buys a Mac, Mac sales will increase even if every person who now uses a mac never buys another one.
 
Rant away, but when you calm down take a look at what has become of Mac sales. If Apple does not make the switch to ARM, how long do you think it will be before Apple slaps a keyboard on a 15” iPad, and quits selling Macs entirely?
This is the route I felt (and still feel) Apple would take, at least with respect to their laptop line.
 
Rant away, but when you calm down take a look at what has become of Mac sales. If Apple does not make the switch to ARM, how long do you think it will be before Apple slaps a keyboard on a 15” iPad, and quits selling Macs entirely?

As of their last reported numbers, the Mac still generates more revenue than the iPad, and generates $7.3B/Quarter in revenue. That of course is before you get into the whole issue of how dropping Macs would negatively impact the entire "ecosystem" in terms of perceived benefits for the customer, how it would affect development for the remaining platforms, etc.

But sure. This thread is already on a pretty crazy ****ing dream so why not go further. By 2025, Apple will be a company that makes just TV shows, and iPod socks. Always gotta have iPod socks.
 
This is the route I felt (and still feel) Apple would take, at least with respect to their laptop line.

They might. I hope not. Multitasking on iPadOS is a nightmare, there are all sorts of use ability problems, etc. Touch-first is not the way to go.

That’s why I hope they find a reason to invest heavily in Macs, even if that means I need to pay for some new software.
 
Enjoy your Apple Mac TOYS because that's all they will be in the future if this rumor is true.

Check my post, I mean this rumor about ARM Mac it's just clickbait, check the facts that Bloomberg and Chuo never explicitly names ARM, just Apple making it's own CPUs, given lately macOS leaked drivers for AMD Ryzen 4000 APU s, and given AMD offers Zen CPU manufacturing license, and apple hiring Mike Filippo an original Zen CPU developers (not just arm, check), all comes sense, AMD license Zen 2 and Apple develop some minor customization on it, and manufacture it at TSMC using its own waffers, no thunderbolt loss, no macOS rewrite, no Intel issues, supply chain control Zen Halo, etc, too much to Lost with unicorn arm Mac.
 
I expect Apple has had macOS running on ARM chips for a while already, just the way they had it running on x86 long before they announced it.The lower end of everything, kernel stuff - that’s essentially the same as iOS, so that part has been there for a long time.

I think most operations have the potential to be as fast if not faster - because Apple is in control of everything at that point and can build in the amount of performance they need. x86 emulation will, indeed, be a big problem though (since it’ll be emulation instead of virtualization), if they don’t build hybrid machines with both CPUs, and it will take a lot of work to get right.

iOS is MacOS.
iOS is stripped with a new framework. Under the hood they are both BSD.
 
  • Like
Reactions: iMacOS and firewood
Check my post, I mean this rumor about ARM Mac it's just clickbait, check the facts that Bloomberg and Chuo never explicitly names ARM, just Apple making it's own CPUs, given lately macOS leaked drivers for AMD Ryzen 4000 APU s, and given AMD offers Zen CPU manufacturing license, and apple hiring Mike Filippo an original Zen CPU developers (not just arm, check), all comes sense, AMD license Zen 2 and Apple develop some minor customization on it, and manufacture it at TSMC using its own waffers, no thunderbolt loss, no macOS rewrite, no Intel issues, supply chain control Zen Halo, etc, too much to Lost with unicorn arm Mac.
Ryzen 4000 APU are mobile CPU's. Says nothing about the transition to AMD on desktop
 
You mean, the one released a decade and a half ago? And iteratively improved since then?

You missed the point that just because something exists and is sold by vendors doesn't mean it's necessary, or even beneficial. Particularly since a lot of the junk Intel pushes out is more marketing than substance; they are one of the worst in recent times. They get away with it because the vast majority of corporate IT types are not computer scientists, nor do they have the time to do benchmarking to verify claims.

Similar things are the Intel "trusted" business, and the whole TSX mess which has been broken for multiple generations.
 
Intel can sue at any moment, they just choose to stay put so far.
Everyone can sue at any moment: this doesn't mean they can prevail. Intel tried to sue Cyrix back in the day for developing x86 CPUs without license and have been defeated in court in that instance.

As example, the article you cited about Nvidia's cross-licensing hints exactly at that: the x86 license from Intel was likely not necessary for Nvidia to make an ARM CPU, but a cross-licensing agreement (which actually included more than just that) was the path of least resistance.
Last week’s announcement of Project Denver firmly established that NVIDIA is making its bet on ARM and not x86, and today they reiterated that not having an x86 license is not a problem for the company because they don’t intend to make an x86 processor.
While Intel’s approval isn’t necessarily essential for Denver like it would be for an x86 CPU, it clearly is easier to build Denver without the risk of Intel suing the pants off of NVIDIA again.

I'm sure Apple would be able to obtain a cross-licensing agreement with Intel if they want. If Intel were to try to force Apple's hands instead, I'm also sure Apple would be not afraid to go in court if they believe they can prevail and prevailing would mean being able to freely enact their strategy without external influences.
 
You missed the point that just because something exists and is sold by vendors doesn't mean it's necessary, or even beneficial.

Ok, so if CPU-level hardware assisted virtualisation is just a load of useless marketing ****: why do VMWare, Parallels, Xen project, Oracle, Microsoft, Apple, etc etc - none of whom make CPUs, but all of whom make hypervisor software that rely on or support those hardware features - make use of it? Are *they* all just suckered by good marketing?

Also, given that essentially all Intel and AMD CPUs contain this support - what "sales" are they making by including it? It's not like you can buy a modern Xeon without VT-x and have to pay extra to get it.
 
I find this all very interesting, but Apple has said that it has not plan to merge iOS and MacOS. As far as running iOS apps on a Mac. The current ARM processor emulates fins on the current Intel x86.

Contrary to what some people here think; having an ARM processor won't drive marketshare, it will just drive it down.

People that want an iOS type laptop already have an iPad Pro with a keyboard, etc.
They aren't buying MacBook Pro or MacPros.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Expos of 1969
Everyone can sue at any moment: this doesn't mean they can prevail. Intel tried to sue Cyrix back in the day for developing x86 CPUs without license and have been defeated in court in that instance.

Let’s get it right. That was actually settled out of court. It looked like Intel would lose, but the reason wasn’t that a license was not needed. The reason was that Cyrix was using a fab that DID have a license. So the question was whether you can infringe a patent by selling a product that was made in a fab that did have a license. The answer to that was going to be “no.”

That isn’t the situation here.
[automerge]1582657491[/automerge]
Contrary to what some people here think; having an ARM processor won't drive marketshare, it will just drive it down.

Simple math tends to say the opposite. Mac has no market share, and sales are declining faster than the PC market as it is (and the PC market is also shrinking). Making Macs more attractive to iOS device owners is a smart move, and will increase share.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rp2011
Have you ever used something doing emulation of another CPU architecture? It's not pleasant.

Ever wondered why the iOS Simulator doesn't simulate an ARM CPU, it simulates iOS on x86?

I imagine, the emulation will not be of an Intel CPU. It will be an emulation that only supports what a macOS Catalina application is allowed to do. It will translate x86-64 machine code to similar ARM64 code and make sure calling macOS APIs are supported.

Also I do not think Apple will release a version of this which will require all applications to run in emulation mode.

If Apple can get the following applications to run natively:
* macOS + OS applications
* Hardware drivers for the most common hardware for regular users
* All Apple Mac applications
* All Mac App Store applications
* Most of the Microsoft Mac applications for regular users
* Most of the Adobe Mac applications
* Slack
* Electron applications
* Every other application is a bonus

a lot of users using a Macbook/MacBook Air/13" MacBook Pro / iMac could run most of their applications in native mode.

It is of less importance if the emulation mode is inefficient for low CPU applications.
 
Ok, so if CPU-level hardware assisted virtualisation is just a load of useless marketing ****: why do VMWare, Parallels, Xen project, Oracle, Microsoft, Apple, etc etc - none of whom make CPUs, but all of whom make hypervisor software that rely on or support those hardware features - make use of it? Are *they* all just suckered by good marketing?

You're not reading, but merely arguing.

First, hardware-based virtualization is more necessary on x86 due to legacy baggage. I said that. i386 has privilege separation features that Microsoft ignored in 1985 to the extent that nobody can use them now. This is in contrast to ARM where the privilege separation, desired for embedded systems, is actively used and is a foundation for the built-in virtualization features.

Second, it still isn't the best solution. Cloud services, like Amazon, push PV, especially for internal loads where they control the stack. Amazon also uses special proprietary hardware virtualization coprocessors, similar to hardware partitioning. It makes more sense at the cloud scale.

A normal corporate IT person doesn't consider this and just drinks vendor Kool-Aid. Why cloud services, run by tech companies, are far more cost efficient.

Also, given that essentially all Intel and AMD CPUs contain this support - what "sales" are they making by including it? It's not like you can buy a modern Xeon without VT-x and have to pay extra to get it.

It pushed hardware refresh cycles, particularly clueless corporate IT types. Repeated when network cards got virtualization capabilities.

Again, vendors add features for the sake of adding features, some are useful, many are not. People who don't realize this are a IT department pointy-haired boss.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.