WWDC 2020: Complete Transcript of Apple's Keynote with iOS 14, macOS Big Sur, and More

[BaltimoreMediaBlog]

I remember. I also to this day have friends running older OS X Macs that can still run older software that never got remade for Intel. Yeah, the big companies like Microsoft and Adobe will support Apple's transition as they do their yearly releases or subscription models. But you can forget about most everyone else who puts out a product you only have to buy once. Companies, if they're even still around, aren't going to dedicate the time, money, and manpower for older products. Gaming will probably be even more dead than it is now.

I disagree to a point. iPhone gaming will now be also Mac gaming. It is an added unmentioned benefit of the ARM transition. But will Apple even take advantage of it? They haven't previously supported any gaming initiative for very long.

 

[usagora]

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.

LOL, it's always been scripted. What else is new? Steve Jobs was really the only one IMO who was able to deliver prepared material as if it were off the cuff.

I agree, though, that I prefer it to be a live event with an audience, but it is what it is in this year of chaos.

 

[gnasher729]

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?

If the first ARM MacBook sold to customers had the same chip as an iPad Pro, they would be selling it today. This is similar to the first Intel machines given to developers which contained an outdated Pentium P3 chip, about two generations behind the first consumer Mac with Intel processor.

 

[cmaier]

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.

Next time just FaceTime me during the presentation.

 

[gnasher729]

“Osborning” means to inadvertently kill sales of your existing product by touting the next version coming in the future. Osborne went out of business before that new model could ever be released, since sales of the old version tanked.

There's actually a bit more to it.

One VP of something at Osborne found out that there were about 200,000 motherboards for the old model that were supposed to be dumped. What a waste of money, he thought. So at the time when the company had decided to switch to the next model, this guy went behind everyone's back, purchased all the other stuff needed to build 200,000 computers to use up the old motherboards, and suddenly the company was surprised that they had 200,000 more computers than planned that they couldn't sell. And the money to buy parts for the new model was gone.

 

[KPOM]

If the first ARM MacBook sold to customers had the same chip as an iPad Pro, they would be selling it today. This is similar to the first Intel machines given to developers which contained an outdated Pentium P3 chip, about two generations behind the first consumer Mac with Intel processor.

P4, but the point remains. I think the first Macs with Apple Silicon will have a souped up variant of the A14. Perhaps 4 performance cores and 8 efficiency cores.

 

[gnasher729]

Was waiting at the end when they were talking about iPad apps on Mac to finally announce pro apps on iPad. If they’ve built Xcode etc. for ARM Macs, why no iPad release?

As a developer, if my boss asked me to develop on an iPad, I'd have some doubts about his mental state. Ok, if I can attach a mouse, a good keyboard, and two large monitors and hide the iPad away somewhere, maybe.
[automerge]1592867639[/automerge]

I think in terms of VM support, things will be fine, it felt more like an omission by way of marketing vs. capability.

At this point they are not trying to sell Silicon Macs to end users, they are trying to sell them to developers. All I care about is that it runs MacOS apps fast, especially Xcode.
[automerge]1592867755[/automerge]

After his statements about “hey” I doubt he is very popular with developers. They probably cut any segment he was in.

I'll tell you something: Most developers don't care one bit about "hey".

 

[whiteboytrash]

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. 😊

I agree in totality. Why compound a single CPU albeit with cores with the workload of everything. Like your T2 example, when the iPhone included the motion coprocessor, mapping, tracking, sports apps just became fundamentally better by a long margin and reduced the stress on the CPU and bettered battery life by a significant degree.

Building a machine around an Intel chip could no longer be the strategy when iPhone/iPad have made such advancements with their own chip design. Microsoft are well aware of this as well and clearly are happy to support Apple on this path.

 

[greenmeanie]

For people who always POST they hate WINDOWS they sure can't seem to let it go LOL.

 

[PBG4 Dude]

Whaaat? I didn't watch all of WWDC but I can't imagine they gave that a spotlight!

Some cities only allow you to drive your car in them on certain days. These limitations are based on hour license plate. If you watch again, you’ll notice they mention this feature for Paris as well as Beijing.

 

[JPack]

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.

Apple already gave a date: 2 years to complete the transition. People might not like it, but that's the time frame.

PPC Mac owners received two years of major Mac OS updates, which translated to a single major release: Mac OS 10.5. I wouldn't expect anything more this time. When Tim Cook says he expects "years" of support, he is likely referring to stability and security fixes.

 

[rwxx]

Apple already gave a date: 2 years to complete the transition. People might not like it, but that's the time frame.

PPC Mac owners received two years of major Mac OS updates, which translated to a single major release: Mac OS 10.5. I wouldn't expect anything more this time. When Tim Cook says he expects "years" of support, he is likely referring to stability and security fixes.

My comment had nothing to do with how long the transition will take. No need to bold anything.

My comment concerned how long Apple will support today’s Intel Macs will software updates and major releases. It seems we’re in agreement: not long.

There’s no way I’d buy an Intel Mac now.

 

[usagora]

When Tim Cook says he expects "years" of support, he is likely referring to stability and security fixes.

Well, yes, of course. This is all the average Mac user cares about. If it's a user that's concerned about always being on the cutting edge, then no one needs to encourage them to hold out for an ARM Mac, as that's already what they're doing.

 

[Detnator]

I agree in totality. Why compound a single CPU albeit with cores with the workload of everything. Like your T2 example, when the iPhone included the motion coprocessor, mapping, tracking, sports apps just became fundamentally better by a long margin and reduced the stress on the CPU and bettered battery life by a significant degree.

Building a machine around an Intel chip could no longer be the strategy when iPhone/iPad have made such advancements with their own chip design. Microsoft are well aware of this as well and clearly are happy to support Apple on this path.

Indeed. And maybe that (Microsoft's support) is another reason why Windows wasn't mentioned during any of the emulation talk - because maybe MS is compiling Windows for Apple's Silicon - that might be a reach, but then again, they're on board with Office, and then there's Adobe's support etc. as well.

People here were saying this is a terrible move by Apple because Adobe etc. will never come on board. I guess they're eating their hats tonight

 

[rwxx]

Well, yes, of course. This is all the average Mac user cares about. If it's a user that's concerned about always being on the cutting edge, then no one needs to encourage them to hold out for an ARM Mac, as that's already what they're doing.

I think the average Mac user does care about being on the current version of macOS. Apple really pushes upgrades too. Apple wants everyone on the current version of its OS, whatever the device may be.

I think Apple needs to give customers clear guidance on how long they can expect major releases for today's Intel Macs. Like I said in another post, I've been eyeing a 16" MBP. The config I want is around $4500. There's no way I'm going to buy that machine unless I feel confident that it will receive major OS releases for at least five years. Absolute minimum. My current 2013 MBP will run Big Sur (7+ years of major OS releases). If I buy a new top of the line Intel Mac today, I expect to get major OS releases for a similar length of time.

But Tim's vague "years" comment means...what? Two years? Eight years? I feel like they should clarify this.

 

[TheKDub]

I think the average Mac user does care about being on the current version of macOS. Apple really pushes upgrades too. Apple wants everyone on the current version of its OS, whatever the device may be.

I think Apple needs to give customers clear guidance on how long they can expect major releases for today's Intel Macs. Like I said in another post, I've been eyeing a 16" MBP. The config I want is around $4500. There's no way I'm going to buy that machine unless I feel confident that it will receive major OS releases for at least five years. Absolute minimum. My current 2013 MBP will run Big Sur (7+ years of major OS releases). If I buy a new top of the line Intel Mac today, I expect to get major OS releases for a similar length of time.

But Tim's vague "years" comment means...what? Two years? Eight years? I feel like they should clarify this.

The alternate is to offer a good trade-in plan. As someone who (maybe unluckily) decided that this was the year to upgrade to a 2020 MBP from the Late 2013 MBP and enjoyed 7 healthy years with the latest OS (and 8 if I still kept it!), having only 2-3 years of OS upgrades before resorting to just security updates is a disappointment. I’m all for progress in technology and as excited to see what Apple Silicon can do and hope it blows everyone out of the water. I just also don’t want to have to spend another $2k out of pocket in two years when my usual upgrade cycle is 5-7 years.

Apple already gets my iPhone money every other year!

 

[TVOR]

And Final Cut Pro.

Indeed! The only reason I didn't mention that is because that is Apple software so they will have had more time to make sure their own apps are up and running...but it's a fair point...it's quite a major app to have on the "already running" list!

 

[usagora]

I think the average Mac user does care about being on the current version of macOS.

I see lots of users on forums not using the current OS, so I disagree based on that evidence. The point is, your Intel Mac will be perfectly useable (what the average user wants) for "years to come" (a phrase that normally indicates a relatively lengthy period of time, not just 2 years).

 

[whiteboytrash]

Indeed. And maybe that (Microsoft's support) is another reason why Windows wasn't mentioned during any of the emulation talk - because maybe MS is compiling Windows for Apple's Silicon - that might be a reach, but then again, they're on board with Office, and then there's Adobe's support etc. as well.

People here were saying this is a terrible move by Apple because Adobe etc. will never come on board. I guess they're eating their hats tonight

Adobe and Microsoft are software companies - they’ll go where there is a sizable user base to develop on. Apple Silicon is not just Macs it is iPad/iPhone which gives them that large footprint. The crossover between using Adobe/MS apps from iPad to Intel Mac is a little disjointed today - that won’t be the case in a years time.

The fact that Intel has no real presence in the mobile industry means it becomes difficult to develop to the platform and then build a second version for mobile devices.

With Apple Silicon that problem doesn’t exist - desktop and mobile are one of the same.

 

[Gerdi]

Indeed. And maybe that (Microsoft's support) is another reason why Windows wasn't mentioned during any of the emulation talk - because maybe MS is compiling Windows for Apple's Silicon

Windows working on any ARMv8.2A architecture and newer is already existing - it will run on Apple Silicon either under VM or bootcamp - but thats up to Apple.

 

[hungryghosty]

I think Apple needs to give customers clear guidance on how long they can expect major releases for today's Intel Macs. Like I said in another post, I've been eyeing a 16" MBP. The config I want is around $4500. There's no way I'm going to buy that machine unless I feel confident that it will receive major OS releases for at least five years. Absolute minimum. My current 2013 MBP will run Big Sur (7+ years of major OS releases). If I buy a new top of the line Intel Mac today, I expect to get major OS releases for a similar length of time.

But Tim's vague "years" comment means...what? Two years? Eight years? I feel like they should clarify this.

THIS +1

IMO Apple urgently needs to put out a statement clarifying the support window and timeframe for OS updates/features/patches/etc.

Otherwise I suspect they'll see sales of their current Intel Mac's fall of a cliff. Who's going to spend thousands on a device when they can't be 100% sure how long it'll be supported for?

I'm actually more worried than I was about long term support for Intel Mac's AFTER watching the WWDC presentation than I was before it!

Windows working on any ARMv8.2A architecture and newer is already existing - it will run on Apple Silicon either under VM or bootcamp - but thats up to Apple.

I feel it's important to clarify they whilst Windows itself will happily run on an ARM Mac that all windows apps not in the app store (which is basically all of them!) are x86 and will run slowly/unreliably/not at all in emulation on an ARM MacBook.

You might be able to get Windows running in things like Parallels/VMware but performance is likely to drop noticeably as emulated x86 Intel OS's will run faster on an x86 Intel host. I wonder whether boot camp will even exist after the move to ARM?

 

[TonyTech]

Sorry but the transitions were VERY jumpy and jarring especially in the beginning. Maybe not for 120hz screens or 4K but for us on 1080p and 60hz still borderline seizure causing.

When I said smooth transitions I meant "the lack of interruptions" that is common in live presentations where a speaker leaves the stage and another one enters the stage, while the audience is clapping and sheering.

 

[DaltonRandall]

This is a lot weirder than I realized it would be with no audience and being pre-recorded.

God, it was awful. Easily the worst WWDC keynote ever - which is sad, because some of the software actually looked cool.

 

[hoodlum90]

It looks like the faster iPhone 12 screens have been confirmed with iOS 14. There is an option to Limit Frame Rate to 60 fps.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1275463090327433218

 

[usagora]

God, it was awful. Easily the worst WWDC keynote ever - which is sad, because some of the software actually looked cool.

"Worst" seems a bit extreme. They obviously put a lot of effort, thought, and energy into it. Sure, I prefer the traditional presentation, but that wasn't feasible this year, so I'm not sure how they could have done much better given the restraints.