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.
WWDC 2020: Complete Transcript of Apple's Keynote with iOS 14, macOS Big Sur, and More
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I guess it'll have to wait until reviewers actually have the product in their hands but I'm really keen to see how well the Rosetta2 emulation runs x86 MacOS apps.
Likewise it'll be really cool to see benchmarks comparing both the current Intel x86 Macbook Pro's running stuff like Photoshop/Final Cut Pro/etc versus native ARM based versions of these same apps on Apple's own silicon.
Hopefully when devs start getting their hands on the ARM Mac Mini kits we'll see some benchmarks leaking out there!
Apple counts as new and “outstanding” features every stupid thing
“Corners are more rounded, wow so exciting” “look how translucent is the top bar, wow I want marry it” “amazing” “incredible” “best translucent effect ever” “so great”
In the meantime, finder stays same feature-less and short of features as ever...
So we could do exactly the same as in 10.16 but more beautiful than evaaaaaar.
I guess MacOS is so perfect right mow only make up can make it just looks better
“Corners are more rounded, wow so exciting” “look how translucent is the top bar, wow I want marry it” “amazing” “incredible” “best translucent effect ever” “so great”
In the meantime, finder stays same feature-less and short of features as ever...
So we could do exactly the same as in 10.16 but more beautiful than evaaaaaar.
I guess MacOS is so perfect right mow only make up can make it just looks better
I'd have thought we'd have been able to get some pretty accurate indications of performance from the dev kit to what Apple will have in the first ARM Macbook later this year given it's running basically the same chip as the iPad Pro?
What makes you think benchmarks provided by the dev hardware won't be meaningful?
I don't use Adobe software, but I do use Microsoft Office, and no, I don't see them losing tons of Microsoft 365 subscribers by cutting off Intel support for that suite of software in a year. That would be absolutely stupid. Obviously not everyone can just drop everything and spend thousands on a new computer just to continue to run their software. In the longer term, yes, they will end up having to do that, but not in the short term. And unless they're idiots, the developers will announce such drastic changes well in advance.
In Apple view, yes. In cross platform solution a.k.a Windows, no.
Windows user with off shelf x86 architecture still have great user share who using cross platform software.
Not all users (says CC subscriber) using
Heya, comparing synthetic benchmark won’t hurt. We know single thread on A12X is already outperform some of Intel desktop core i-X counterparts.
I am transitioning away myself. Thought I could hang in, but this does not appeal to me.
You really shouldn't buy an Apple Silicon Mac any time in the next 10 years because the next transition will kill those too and you'll be screwed.
/s
[automerge]1592856771[/automerge]
All you people panicking about this is just stupid. Someone said they killed PPC in 2 years or something. Not true at all. Here's the facts:
- The transition was announced WWDC June 2005.
- Released the first production Intel Macs Jan 2006 (15" MBP and iMac).
- Completed the hardware transition wit the Mac Pro and XServe in Aug 2006.
- Steve said it would take two years. It was just over one year.
- The last release of macOS that ran on PPC was 10.5.8 Leopard, released Aug 13 2009 - four years after the announcement.
- Leopard was officially still supported by Apple until June 2011 - 6 years after the announcement.
- 10.6.8 Snow Leopard still included Rosetta 1, supporting PPC apps on Intel Macs. July 2011 - 6 years after the announcement.
- Last PPC Mac reached 5yo "vintage" statues in August 2011 - again, 6 years after the announcement.
- Last PPC Mac reached 7yo "obsolete" status in August 2013 - 8 years after the announcement.
- All these timeframes are pretty consistent with macOS support of Mac hardware regardless of any architecture change. Not quite as long but not far off. If we look at Mojave, released September 2018, most Macs from 2012 onwards run it. - 6 years support. Catalina, today, runs on the same set, so there's an extra year. I expect Big Sur will cut some of those off, and we'll see 6-7 year support for that.
Interestingly Steve's Intel announcement was virtually the same as Tim's today: 2 years transition to the new architecture (Intel then, AS now) and "years" of support for the previous architecture (PPC then, Intel now).
You people need to calm down and take a reality check. Apple doesn't "ditch" its "loyal customers" with anything like the conspiracy theories you people accuse them of.
The Intel Mac you bought today will be supported until 2026. Quote me on that then if you want.
Your internet must have hard time keeping up, no problem on my 1080P/60hz Apple TV.
I just told you why. The new machines will use an a14. The dev kit uses an a12. Would benchmarking a pentium tell you anything about an i7?
It's not about slowing down the transition. It's about being transparent with your customers who are spending thousands and thousands of dollars on your products. It's not much to ask.
It won't give us exact figures but I'd assume that we could speculate the performance jump to an A14 will be roughly equivalent to the usual leap between iPad Pro generations. So we can probably get a ballpark estimate of how ARM will compare against current Intel chips IMO.
Guess we won't have long to wait for actual benchmarks though as it sounds like there'll be an ARM Macbook out later this year!
Hardware support and software support are two different things as your list makes clear. PPC Mac owners received four years of major OS releases following the announcement. I'm writing this on a late 2013 MBP. It's running Catalina. According to the Big Sur specs, my Mac is still supported.
Is Apple going to support today's new Intel Macs with major OS releases for the next 8+ years? Your list suggests that anyone buying a new Intel Mac today should be prepared for that machine to stop receiving major OS releases after 1/2 that time. That wouldn't make me happy if I'd just spent tens of thousands of dollars on a new Mac Pro.
Finally PINNED Conversations!!!
Apple's first-ever all-online Worldwide Developers Conference (WWDC) starts today with the traditional keynote kicking things off at 10:00 a.m. Pacific Time.
We're expecting to see a number of announcements, including iOS 14, macOS 10.16, watchOS 7, and tvOS 14, as well as an announcement about Apple's long-rumored transition of its Mac lineup from Intel processors to Apple-designed Arm-based chips. Last-minute rumors have indicated that hardware announcements are unlikely this year.
Apple is providing a live video stream on its website, on YouTube, and in the company's TV and Developer apps across its platforms. We will also be updating this article with live blog coverage and issuing Twitter updates through our @MacRumorsLive account as the keynote unfolds. Highlights from the event and separate news stories regarding today's announcements will go out through our @MacRumors account.
Sign up for our newsletter to keep up with Apple news and rumors.
Visit article to see live updates
Article Link: WWDC 2020: Coverage of Apple's Keynote with iOS 14, macOS 10.16, and More
Well, Catalina was 13 years after a 2006 Mac Mini, so I'd say that's a pretty long time.
I just upgraded my 2013 MBP (which is still running well) to a 2020 MBP. I have the exact same worry. It's not that I don't expect that my 2020 MBP to stop working, but I think the lifespan won't be the same 7-9+ year support that previous versions have been.
With Apple switching to its own silicon, I expect the pace of new features, new APIs, etc. to increase. What that tells me is that while today's new Intel Macs will continue to perform for years to come, they will also be left out of ecosystem advances quicker, effectively forcing a switch to an A-Series Mac or forgoing those new features, just as PPC users had to forgo new features after Leopard. Back then it wasn't such a big deal, but today the Apple platforms are so tightly integrated. If your iPhone and iPad have some new killer feature, but your Intel Mac isn't supported because it can't run the new macOS, that will suck.
I have been thinking about buying a new 16" MBP. The configuration I want is around $4500. I'm definitely not going to buy it now.
Grabbed a mbp 16 from a friend for 2k today. High end base. I’ll be fine with it for 5-7 years. Even if arm macs pan out I’m no where near wanting one anytime soon or ever if they can’t run more than toy iPad like apps.
I get a little frustrated by comments like this...did you not see them running MS Word, Excel and PowerPoint and Adobe Lightroom and Photoshop (what looked like "full fat" versions...not iPad versions)?
On another note... y'all complaining about how this "Apple Silicon:" transition makes all the Intel apps and Windows impossible to run, and all the other things you think these new Macs are NOT going to do, kinda missed the point.
First of all, they pretty clearly showed that these things will continue to do what today's Macs do (with the possible exception of Boot Camp because that's just making a Mac just another PC). But they showed emulation in VM's just like today's. (No, I didn't miss the fact that there was no mention of Windows, but I suspect that was a legal issue to not mention it, not a technical issue that it can't do it). From what I saw, Intel emulation on Apple Silicon looks like it easily rivals, if not beats, Intel native.
Secondly, and most importantly I think, they didn't call it a "transition to ARM" because this isn't about taking the Intel chip out and replacing it with a single Apple ARM chip. No, this is more classic Apple. Someone posted a comment here in another thread that I think sums it up pretty well so I'm stealing that:
"Apple is a design-led company, with Apple designers calling the shots, and searching for and having technology made to serve the product experience, not engineers excited about about new hot tech and trying to turn it into a product."
Everyone else looks at the tech (Intel's CPUs, AMDs/Nvidia's GPUs, Qualcomm's/Intel's wireless options, etc. etc.) and then tries to figure out what they can do with it. Apple has always been about "Forget the technology. What experience do we want for the user? Ok, now let's figure out the tech to make that happen." And I think they also approach it with: "Maybe some of that tech will take years or decades to invent, but let's start somewhere and do what we can now and build on it."
Macs have been "PCs" for decades because they had to develop the tech to get to this point where they could put their own tech in it. So they made the best of others' tech till now. But I think these new Macs are the fulfillment of that vision (Tim said something along those lines in the presentation today), like the iPad has fulfilled most of the Knowledge Navigator vision from the 1980's.
People complaining about "no mention of GPU" and what GPU are they putting in these? You missed it: What GPU does the iPad Pro have? AMD? Nvidia? No... Apple. These Macs will be the same. Keep getting upset if you want, that Apple won't put a 2080ti in anything. But why should they? Again, Apple will have complete control and this **** is going to be more powerful than all but the highest end standalone GPUs.
But it's more than that… They're building the entire package now, and they're rethinking it from the ground up. It's not just putting their own CPU and GPU in it. They showed a couple of slides of a whole range of processing hardware they're putting into these things. It's an array of all kinds of technology that will replace what a traditional CPU and GPU (and other parts) do, and by having that complete control and diversity they'll deliver something amazing.
It started with the T2. Complain about its issues all you want - and some of those complaints are legit and they need to fix that stuff - but the T2 does some pretty important stuff. For example... I used to turn on FileVault, and it would take half a day to encrypt my drive. Now I turn on FileVault, and thanks to the T2, it's instantaneous. There's a bunch of other stuff the T2 does. And in doing those things, that the individual chips are specifically designed to do, they not only do those specific tasks better than the all-purpose CPU, they also take that overhead away from the CPU. So even now, today's Mac with an Intel CPU in it performs better than today's PC with the same Intel CPU in it, because the CPU in the Mac doesn't have to do as much. And that's only going to get better as they're now taking that further.
So Macs STILL don't/won't do CUDA, or Direct-X, and moving forward, possibly other third-party-vendor-specific technology any more. Well Damn (sarcasm). It's not an Nvidia, AMD, Microsoft, Google, or whatever else computer. It's an Apple computer. Why does everyone expect Apple to support EVERYTHING? I suppose it sucks that your Xbox won't run your PS4 games too. And your CD player won't play your cassette tapes or vinyl records either.
Apps and games on the Mac do with Metal most of what Apps and games on other systems do with CUDA, Direct-X, and whatever else. Apple has never made gaming "PCs" and they have no interest in that market. If you want one of those, buy one of those. If your workflow requires some CUDA or some other specific technology that Apple doesn't support then buy a computer that does support that specific tech or software you require, and Apple computers are not for you. That's ok. If your transportation needs are entirely about delivering couches, then a motorcycle is not for you either.
Buy an Apple computer if you want what Apple computers are for - because Apple computers do what Apple computers are for, really really well.
All this is similar to what they did with AirPods and their other head/ear-phones that use the T1 and now H1 chip (have I got those names right?). They didn't just make more fancy bluetooth headsets. They fundamentally changed the way it works (connection and switching between all your devices in one go, etc.) to provide a better experience. They got rid of bluetooth hassles - if you use those devices within Apple's garden - and they're making that better moving forwards too. But note those devices still work as normal bluetooth headsets for everything else!
Fankly, that presentation today didn't do it justice. They stated some facts, showed off some stuff - mostly just as if they were trying to prove that these new Macs are still going to be ok and do the same old stuff well. They mentioned, but I think failed to really drive home, the real point of this change: Apple can now do anything they want with these Macs - and they will. And it'll be game changing.
They redefined smartphones with the iPhone, tablets with the iPad, music players and digital music with the iPod and iTunes. And like they did with the Mac originally, they're going to redefine desktop and laptop computing. And just like with all those, everyone else will try to figure out how to copy it. Most will suck. Some will do a decent job. Some will come up with other cool stuff that Apple doesn't want to do or wants to wait until they've done it better before they deliver on it. But Apple will have started it and it will change the world. Again. We'll look back on it in a few years like we look back at the original Mac, iPod, iPhone, iPad now. There was nothing like those devices before them. And right now there's nothing like what these new Macs will be in a few years.
No. I don't have Apple shares, and I'm not Tim in disguise. All the above is just what I saw today, and I'm excited about it. That's what I think this is about. If I'm wrong about this, feel free to come back in 5 years and tell me so. I can handle it. But I'll bet dollars to donuts I'm not. 😊
First of all, they pretty clearly showed that these things will continue to do what today's Macs do (with the possible exception of Boot Camp because that's just making a Mac just another PC). But they showed emulation in VM's just like today's. (No, I didn't miss the fact that there was no mention of Windows, but I suspect that was a legal issue to not mention it, not a technical issue that it can't do it). From what I saw, Intel emulation on Apple Silicon looks like it easily rivals, if not beats, Intel native.
Secondly, and most importantly I think, they didn't call it a "transition to ARM" because this isn't about taking the Intel chip out and replacing it with a single Apple ARM chip. No, this is more classic Apple. Someone posted a comment here in another thread that I think sums it up pretty well so I'm stealing that:
"Apple is a design-led company, with Apple designers calling the shots, and searching for and having technology made to serve the product experience, not engineers excited about about new hot tech and trying to turn it into a product."
Everyone else looks at the tech (Intel's CPUs, AMDs/Nvidia's GPUs, Qualcomm's/Intel's wireless options, etc. etc.) and then tries to figure out what they can do with it. Apple has always been about "Forget the technology. What experience do we want for the user? Ok, now let's figure out the tech to make that happen." And I think they also approach it with: "Maybe some of that tech will take years or decades to invent, but let's start somewhere and do what we can now and build on it."
Macs have been "PCs" for decades because they had to develop the tech to get to this point where they could put their own tech in it. So they made the best of others' tech till now. But I think these new Macs are the fulfillment of that vision (Tim said something along those lines in the presentation today), like the iPad has fulfilled most of the Knowledge Navigator vision from the 1980's.
People complaining about "no mention of GPU" and what GPU are they putting in these? You missed it: What GPU does the iPad Pro have? AMD? Nvidia? No... Apple. These Macs will be the same. Keep getting upset if you want, that Apple won't put a 2080ti in anything. But why should they? Again, Apple will have complete control and this **** is going to be more powerful than all but the highest end standalone GPUs.
But it's more than that… They're building the entire package now, and they're rethinking it from the ground up. It's not just putting their own CPU and GPU in it. They showed a couple of slides of a whole range of processing hardware they're putting into these things. It's an array of all kinds of technology that will replace what a traditional CPU and GPU (and other parts) do, and by having that complete control and diversity they'll deliver something amazing.
It started with the T2. Complain about its issues all you want - and some of those complaints are legit and they need to fix that stuff - but the T2 does some pretty important stuff. For example... I used to turn on FileVault, and it would take half a day to encrypt my drive. Now I turn on FileVault, and thanks to the T2, it's instantaneous. There's a bunch of other stuff the T2 does. And in doing those things, that the individual chips are specifically designed to do, they not only do those specific tasks better than the all-purpose CPU, they also take that overhead away from the CPU. So even now, today's Mac with an Intel CPU in it performs better than today's PC with the same Intel CPU in it, because the CPU in the Mac doesn't have to do as much. And that's only going to get better as they're now taking that further.
So Macs STILL don't/won't do CUDA, or Direct-X, and moving forward, possibly other third-party-vendor-specific technology any more. Well Damn (sarcasm). It's not an Nvidia, AMD, Microsoft, Google, or whatever else computer. It's an Apple computer. Why does everyone expect Apple to support EVERYTHING? I suppose it sucks that your Xbox won't run your PS4 games too. And your CD player won't play your cassette tapes or vinyl records either.
Apps and games on the Mac do with Metal most of what Apps and games on other systems do with CUDA, Direct-X, and whatever else. Apple has never made gaming "PCs" and they have no interest in that market. If you want one of those, buy one of those. If your workflow requires some CUDA or some other specific technology that Apple doesn't support then buy a computer that does support that specific tech or software you require, and Apple computers are not for you. That's ok. If your transportation needs are entirely about delivering couches, then a motorcycle is not for you either.
Buy an Apple computer if you want what Apple computers are for - because Apple computers do what Apple computers are for, really really well.
All this is similar to what they did with AirPods and their other head/ear-phones that use the T1 and now H1 chip (have I got those names right?). They didn't just make more fancy bluetooth headsets. They fundamentally changed the way it works (connection and switching between all your devices in one go, etc.) to provide a better experience. They got rid of bluetooth hassles - if you use those devices within Apple's garden - and they're making that better moving forwards too. But note those devices still work as normal bluetooth headsets for everything else!
Fankly, that presentation today didn't do it justice. They stated some facts, showed off some stuff - mostly just as if they were trying to prove that these new Macs are still going to be ok and do the same old stuff well. They mentioned, but I think failed to really drive home, the real point of this change: Apple can now do anything they want with these Macs - and they will. And it'll be game changing.
They redefined smartphones with the iPhone, tablets with the iPad, music players and digital music with the iPod and iTunes. And like they did with the Mac originally, they're going to redefine desktop and laptop computing. And just like with all those, everyone else will try to figure out how to copy it. Most will suck. Some will do a decent job. Some will come up with other cool stuff that Apple doesn't want to do or wants to wait until they've done it better before they deliver on it. But Apple will have started it and it will change the world. Again. We'll look back on it in a few years like we look back at the original Mac, iPod, iPhone, iPad now. There was nothing like those devices before them. And right now there's nothing like what these new Macs will be in a few years.
No. I don't have Apple shares, and I'm not Tim in disguise. All the above is just what I saw today, and I'm excited about it. That's what I think this is about. If I'm wrong about this, feel free to come back in 5 years and tell me so. I can handle it. But I'll bet dollars to donuts I'm not. 😊
I really loved this style of presentation. It was exactly as I had expected.
On June 11, I said:
While I do expect people to return to the Steve Jobs Theater eventually, I think that this might be the end of the “Stevenote” era. There might still be Tim Cook on stage with an audience in the theatre but some segments will be prerecorded or held in different parts of Apple Park and shown for those in the theatre on screen.
On June 11, I said:
While I do expect people to return to the Steve Jobs Theater eventually, I think that this might be the end of the “Stevenote” era. There might still be Tim Cook on stage with an audience in the theatre but some segments will be prerecorded or held in different parts of Apple Park and shown for those in the theatre on screen.
I miss the live presentation. Everything was scripted and prerecorded and it showed.
Also missed the guy who would go "wooo" every once and a while.
Also missed the guy who would go "wooo" every once and a while.