Apple did the exact same thing with the Rev. C iMac G5 with iSight camera and the first generation Intel iMac…
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.
TSMC to Remain Sole iPhone Chip Supplier, Could Provide ARM-Based Chips for Mac in 2020, Apple Car Chips in 2023
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That would be making a lot of assumptions that all mac software is created using Apple libraries.
Then there is the fact of having to repurchase software licence upgrades because v7 on Intel will become v8 on arm which will be a paid update unless you are subscribing to your software.
Then there are the apps/libraries that are no longer being maintained.
[doublepost=1539867523][/doublepost]
Why do you think that?
[doublepost=1539867615][/doublepost]
What you mean like an iPad pro with keyboard?
The majority of Linux/Unix code is processor-independent - its been that way since the dawn of time (Thursday, 1 January 1970
) - look at the shedload of software that is available for the Raspberry Pi. There's a lot of interest in ARM in the server market and Red Hat already support ARM: https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/red-hat-introduces-arm-server-support-red-hat-enterprise-linux - if there's enough interest in the software you are using it will get rebuilt for ARM (...and Linux software tends to be either FOSS so anybody can re-compile it or very, very expensive - in which case, complaints on a postcard to the publisher). The only problem would be if there are no Linux drivers for the new Apple hardware. ...but that pretty much is the case for any modern software - the only problem is where the publisher no longer exists or is no longer actively supporting their software so there's nobody to "throw the switch" - and all of that software dies next September anyway.
You could do x86 emulation on ARM in 1988. More seriously, Microsoft already have a modern implementation: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/uwp/porting/apps-on-arm-x86-emulation - they might even license it (its impossible to predict when MS and Apple are going to fight or co-operate). However, ~1988 the ARM 2/3 was seriously faster than its contemporary Intel rivals so it had the "headroom" to run a usable x86 emulation. Today, the ARMs advantages are power consumption and customisability rather than raw speed so any transition can't depend so much on emulation.
Look, lets have some reality checks here.
1. These rumors could just refer to the use of ARM-based subsystems in Macs - as is already the case in the iMac Pro and the 2018 MBP.
2. If Apple lets their Intel Macs get hopelessly out-of-date and then suddenly drops them all overnight in favour of new ARM-based systems, cutting off people who use virtualisation or Intel-only software at the knees, then that is all kinds of stupid - but that hasn't happened yet. A gradual transition - maybe starting with some sort of iPad/12" MacBook crossover to compete with PC 2-in-1 systems, with the 'pro' Intel Macs staying current for some years yet - makes a lot more sense.
3. If you're primarily using Windows or Linux then I'm not sure what permutation of misconceptions would lead you to buy a new Mac today given the far wider choice and variety of Windows hardware - and if Apple continue on their current course then, come 2020 you're going to be in a very small minority (...plus Apple and/or Microsoft could easily break Boot Camp and/or Linux - because security - on new hardware even if they stick with Intel).
4. Windows on ARM already exists and could well be big by 2020. It might not work on BootCamp (but then BootCamp might die in the future as Apple's architecture diverges further from the standard PC - which has already started with the iMP and MBP) but virtualisation ought to be possible (yes, ARM can do that).
5. "Just flick a switch and re-compile" is optimistic - but far closer to reality than it was at at the last architecture change in 2005 (even then, a lot of Apps were very quickly ported). Many developers currently supporting MacOS already have, or are likely to be looking at, iOS versions, which means that making their core software ARM/Intel agnostic is already on the agenda. Hardware Abstracted OS-level frameworks - Metal, Grand Central Dispatch, Core Audio etc. are far more prevalent than in 2005. As noted before - if Adobe can port Photoshop CS to iPad then its not going to be a problem to support ARMintosh.
6. Then there's the shift to Web/Cloud Apps - certainly at the 12" macBook/iPad end of the market, people aren't nearly as tied to MS Office as they were in 2005.
7. Yes, the Mac Pro would be the tricky one - but since the Pro and the Mini haven't been upgraded since 2012/3 (the 2014 Mini was a downgrade) most actual Pro users have already left the building and if Apple did release a 2020 Pro with an exotic gazillion-core ARM architecture that worked brilliantly as a FCPX/Logic "appliance" then at least it would be interesting.
TLDNR: Apple could switch to ARM sensibly, stupidly or not at all.
Or simple economics: by doing option A=make money, option B=lose money. Which option you going to go for? "Oh I'll go for option B because I'm sure it's all Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt"
Oh please.
I said MOST. You responded “that would be assuming ALL Mac software is...”
How can a statement about MOST software be making an assumption about ALL software?
Mac software, like all software, falls into several categories. Putting aside popularity and looking only at quantity, a lot of it is code where a single organization has all the source code, including for an libraries. Another tranche is software where there are some linked libraries (which has been shrinking as organizations move to swift, and due to increasing code signing restrictions when using the MAS). Many of these libraries will also be recompiled, solving the problem. And finally you have situations where you rely on a third party library, don’t have the source, don’t use the MAS anyway (which may be its own future problem for such code). This last category is not the majority of apps.
Hence I said “most.”
Of course not, macOS isn't going anywhere. And no, an iPad or iPhone can be just as productive as any typical computer, depending on your task. That will only improve as more and more developers focus on this market. I use an iPad Pro to manage a team of 60 people, I don't do any consumption on it during work hours.
As a software developer, it is trivial.
To show you how trivial it is: For iOS developers, Apple provides a simulator running on the Mac that can simulate anything from iPods to iPhone XS-Max. Instead of emulating ARM code, the compiler translates your iPhone app to Intel code, and that's what runs on the simulator. Works with absolutely no problems.
So unless your application uses Intel assembly code, and has no replacement for this assembly code, all you need to do as a developer is turning on a switch for arm 64 bit code in addition to the intel code, and that's it. My code works just fine on both Intel and Arm processors, with no changes at all.
[doublepost=1539871730][/doublepost]
You didn't know? Apple makes roughly half of all profits in the PC (laptop and desktop) hardware markets.
Last edited:
The problem Apple will face is the work flow will have to go the other way from what you describe. Yes the compiler goes from "your iPhone app to Intel code" and that works just dandy now. However show me one instance of an x86 program that can be compiled for ARM or AX series of processor where "all you need to do as a developer is turning on a switch". Any program will do.
It should be a Mac that runs Xcode just as fast as the quad core MacBook Pro. Because that's what all the developers have. So you can continue doing iOS development, but also can build MacOS software for ARM, without losing speed.
I think this is basically Apple saying we won't be moving to your crappy Intel Custom Fab, and a warning if you don't produce something decent or dramatically lower the price, we will switch.
I still hope Qualcomm will lower its price and smoothes everything out with Apple.
I still hope Qualcomm will lower its price and smoothes everything out with Apple.
Absolutely.
Every new version of MacOS kills off some old software that is either already abandoned or deemed unprofitable by the manufacturer. More so on the 2-3 occasions that Apple have completely switched processor. There's going to be a big cull next September when 32 bit is dropped.
On the other hand, some of the clunkiness and insecurity of Windows in the past is because Microsoft hasn't dared to break ancient software (the core OS has been pretty solid since Windows NT5 - but if, e.g. legacy software expects to run with full admin privileges you can't secure the OS) - but MS has a huge presence in the "corporate" market where there's a huge amount of shockingly ancient and shoddy bespoke/in-house software on which businesses rely (and old school DOS/Win9x-era software, even written in C, was pathologically processor-dependent). Apple has always had more freedom to break old stuff.
Modern OSs have become progressively more and more processor independent (well, apart from Unix/Linux which has always been crossplatform) as speeds have increased and the overhead of "hardware abstraction" has become less significant. These days, no programmer with any sense writes code that depends on the "bare metal" unless it is absolutely unavoidable - c.f. back in the day when "bare metal" was the only way of doing graphics, sound, drivers or (as processors developed) vector/SIMD processing. More and more is even written using scripting languages (processor independent). Outside MacOS, most Android software is distributed as processor-independent bytecode, as does much Windows software written in modern languages like C#. Even Apple's language compilers output virtual-machine bytecode, although that currently goes through a second stage to produce ARM or x64 code.
If Apple did want to switch to ARM it would be perfectly feasible if done on a sensible timescale so as not to leave people behind - and it would be a lot easier to do now than it was the last two times when there was far more lovingly hand-crafted assembler around. If they first wait for all of their Intel kit go obsolete and then drop in ARM out of the blue - well, if they were really that stupid then the Mac would be doomed anyway.
"I think they are more concerned about the users who are quick to adapt, thinking differently about their workflows, and push computing in a new direction."
I agree. I just read an article on Macworld discussing this very idea.
https://www.macworld.com/article/33...op-on-ios-is-a-huge-win-for-the-ipad-pro.html
"In 2019, things are going to change. Yes, we know that Apple is working on a way for iOS apps to come to the Mac. But as Adobe’s announcement indicates, desktop apps are going to iOS, too. When Adobe discusses Photoshop now, it does so as a single tool that appears on the various devices used by the people who rely on it. Photoshop is a system that spans Mac, PC, and now iOS. It goes where you go, on the devices you want."
"That’s really Apple’s larger vision for 2019 and beyond: If you are sitting at a desk in front of a big iMac screen or traveling with an iPad Pro, you should be able to have access to familiar software. Choose the right tool for the job, whether it’s a big desktop or a tiny laptop or an even smaller tablet, and you should be able to get that job done."
The OSX kernel is an implementation of the open source Unix like Free BSD kernel (Berkeley Software Distribution). It is not a propitiatory x86 program. Again show me a program on x86 that someone sells or gives away and, by the magic of flicking a switch, now runs on ARM.
In fact do you actually believe Apple just turned on a switch in the compiler when they wanted Free BSD on iOS devices?
You are changing the goalpost and throwing in an “again” to try and hide it. Cute.
[doublepost=1539875750][/doublepost]
AND by the way, much of MS office is now common code base.
OK take "again" out of my post, the question still stands. Talk about "moving the goalpost" you provide an example where "much" of the code is a comman base. I never asked for an example like that. I'm not going to repeat what I asked for because, guess what, I'll have to use the word "again" (shock, horror).
Good article, I'll check it out. I agree, it's only going to get better from here. Tabbed apps is the next multitasking environment for iPad, which I think is going to be a solid implementation. I see major growth for iPad in the coming years. Everyone seems to think Marzipan is being developed to drive iOS apps to macOS, but I think it's to easily port macOS apps to iPad instead.
Again, you don't work at Apple.
[doublepost=1539877252][/doublepost]
Windows 10 is available on select niche ARM powered devices with cellular built in. To be honest, they aren't flying off the shelves either.
Not to mention an OS migration (Mac OS -> OS X/macOS).
Put them together, and it's an even more impressive marketing transition. They essentially migrated their users' fanatical product-loyalty to a brand new OS & hardware platform.
Classic, Carbon and Cocoa made the pill easier to swallow.
Was there not a report that Apple is expecting all developers to support iOS/macOS compliant binaries by mid 2019 or these apps may not be compatiable with iOS 13.
Is it just Windows 10 or Windows 10 on ARM. Though anecdotal I know many friends and co-workers prefer Windows 7 over Windows 10 (x64).
I understand Windows 10 (x64/ARM) bring a lot of improvements, however some prefer Windows 7 or are looking to downgrade.
I wonder if Windows 7 was available on ARM, if the comparison of acceptance be the same. One has to remember that Windows 10 is the default install on new machines, if a choice was provided I wonder what the numbers would depict.
You are 100% correct, the difference is anyone can produce those "select niche ARM powered devices with cellular built in" so Microsoft has the potential to sell to all and sundry. However producing a version of Windows that they can only sell to one particular use case (Mac users) I don't see that happening.
Ah, true, I'd forgotten about non-Apple libraries.
[doublepost=1539882871][/doublepost]
I know. But a Mac that dual boots into Debian or Ubuntu or something - increases the percentage of Linux installs on ARM, so makes Pi less of an oddball in that regard.