4 ms·

My prediction is that we will see a new MacBook (Air) next year (probably October-November), with an ARM CPU running MacOS 11. Apple with bump MacOS (nee OSX) a

My prediction is that we will see a new MacBook (Air) next year (probably October-November), with an ARM CPU running MacOS 11. Apple with bump MacOS (nee OSX) a major version number and keep it in parity with iOS, which will also be version 11 next year. Essentially iOS and MacOS becoming front ends to the same OS (which they almost are). They will start with the ARM CPU on a single MacBook (an entry level one) for a few years before pushing it our across the whole range once app compatibility has been achieved.

camillomiller 10y ago
Aren't we already at 12 with macOS Sierra?
- samwillis 10y ago
  Nope, it's 10.12. We will see a jump to 11.0.
  - camillomiller 10y ago
    Silly me, I skipped the main number :)
alkonaut 10y ago
Arm on desktop (win or Mac OS) has to happen now that the chips are this quick. I don't really need a phone with desktop perf, but I'd love a laptop with phone class battery life.
- TazeTSchnitzel 10y ago
  Windows can already build on ARM, even (Windows RT). Microsoft could make a “full” version of Windows for ARM if they wanted.
  - alkonaut 10y ago
    No doubt full Windows is already running on Arm at Microsoft - the problem is likely that legacy Win32 x86/x64 apps need to run on Arm which requires some sort of effort similar to when Apple switched to Intel. Only having.
    - kitsunesoba 10y ago
      To add to this, third party Windows programs have very little in common with each other, as developers on that platform use hundreds of different UI toolkits, libraries, etc making porting to ARM infeasible due to the number of dependencies that need to be ported along with it. Contrast this with the situation on Apple platforms, where nearly all developers use Cocoa and the vast majority of third party libraries already support ARM in addition to x86. Most of today's Mac apps could be running on a hypothetical new ARM based Mac with developers doing little more than ticking an additional architecture box in Xcode and recompiling. Apple has everything that kept MS from succeeding with their ARM desktop OS transition and could even make the leap relatively smoothly.
      - TazeTSchnitzel 10y ago
        Microsoft have tried to run Windows on multiple platforms before, and IIRC, failed. NT was available for the Alpha and MIPS, but I believe almost everything had to be emulated.
      - alkonaut 10y ago
        "Full" emulation has to be provided - that is, an emulator that lets ALL Windows programs written years ago to be run on ARM Windows without recompilation. They have started to move to platform independence with UWP, but legacy software must also work otherwise it's not Windows.
    - IOT_Apprentice 10y ago
      Um, Microsoft was selling a surface device that ran on ARM, in addition to the Intel version.
bunderbunder 10y ago
A shift to ARM is a big deal for developers, so they'd probably want to give them a year like they did the last time this happened. It's also the kind of thing that Apple would want to announce at WWDC. We just had one of those a couple months ago, so that makes the next opportunity for a switchover more like summer 2018.
TheCondor 10y ago
Isn't this called the iPad Pro? PowerPC to Intel had some built in advantages: Intel was really pulling away from PowerPC and it gave Apple immediate hardware parity. Before Intel you could love their software but there were real questions about performance. The advantages with arm seem less obvious, why would you do anything but let the market decide? Build up bigger and better iPad pros until it erodes you MacBook market.
adamlett 10y ago
The shift to Intel was a move of necessity, a huge risk, and ultimately a major pain for Apple's customers not talk about third party developers. Apple took a huge hit to their goodwill. That was predictable, but they went ahead and did it anyway. Why? Because they had to. PowerPC was falling further and further behind. It was alright for Macs to be more expensive than PCs, but more expensive and slower? Furthermore, PowerPC was holding Apple back from taking the Mac where they wanted it to go (ultralight laptops). None of the issues that caused the Intel transition apply to Apple now. Intel is not holding Apple back, because Apple already uses its own chips in what it considers the future of computing: iOS devices. At the same time Macs use exactly the same chips as PCs, which means there is no risk that PCs will suddenly leapfrog the Macs. There is in other word no major need to make a shift. But the risks in doing so would be the same. Apple would once again be pissing of its customers and 3rd party developers. And for what? A marginal improvement in battery life? To save a fragment on bill of materials on a product line which already enjoys healthy margins, but which also is a tiny fragment of their overall business?
- h1d 10y ago
  Last time I checked, PC desktop were dominated by Windows by about 90% market share and that market, while shifting to mobile, isn't tiny either. If they could come up with a desktop that is as small as Apple TV while providing enough performance of a large box desktop or shaves off 300g off of laptop without compromise or doubles battery power, that would be shocking even to average consumers. As I have been losing interest on Apple products for the past 5 years not seeing much of innovations, I think it's time they take the risk while they can. It's a shocking news if x86 drags Intel (and to some extent Windows) to secondary position, if Apple does it right.
  - shanusmagnus 10y ago
    I think you vastly overestimate how much average consumers and businesses know or care about any of those issues. Apple could release a chip that was 500% faster than the equivalent Intel chip while only consuming 75% of the power and it wouldn't move the needle on the distribution of Mac vs. Windows purchases. The vast majority of people and businesses who buy Windows buy in for the ecosystem and nothing else.
melling 10y ago
Shouldn't the iPad simply become the MacBook Air? There will be a convergence with the low-end laptop. It's simply a matter of getting desktop software running on iOS. As with the new Airpods, you instantly pair your keyboard, if it's not attached, and mouse. Apple's strength is iOS so they should grow it into the laptop.
satysin 10y ago
I have been predicting this for a while. I keep saying "hmm maybe in a year or two" but it never seems to happen :) I still believe the future of macOS will be ARM though. Apple have invested so damn much in making their own SoC that I can't imagine them not going that way. Soon (within a year or two? heh) they will have an SoC that they can pop in the MacBook and performance will be so close to the m-series Intel chip that only lab benchmarks will show a difference (and even that will be tiny). Once that happens Apple will own the own compute process. While very cool it also sucks as I have no doubt the Mac will become as locked down a iOS. No sideloading and certainly no dualbooting. The Mac will essentially be yet another appliance albeit it one with some kind of development environment. It won't be something you can hack on though (well not without having to actually hack it first).

camillomiller 10y ago

Aren't we already at 12 with macOS Sierra?

samwillis 10y ago
Nope, it's 10.12. We will see a jump to 11.0.
- camillomiller 10y ago
  Silly me, I skipped the main number :)

alkonaut 10y ago

Arm on desktop (win or Mac OS) has to happen now that the chips are this quick. I don't really need a phone with desktop perf, but I'd love a laptop with phone class battery life.

TazeTSchnitzel 10y ago
Windows can already build on ARM, even (Windows RT). Microsoft could make a “full” version of Windows for ARM if they wanted.
- alkonaut 10y ago
  No doubt full Windows is already running on Arm at Microsoft - the problem is likely that legacy Win32 x86/x64 apps need to run on Arm which requires some sort of effort similar to when Apple switched to Intel. Only having.
  - kitsunesoba 10y ago
    To add to this, third party Windows programs have very little in common with each other, as developers on that platform use hundreds of different UI toolkits, libraries, etc making porting to ARM infeasible due to the number of dependencies that need to be ported along with it. Contrast this with the situation on Apple platforms, where nearly all developers use Cocoa and the vast majority of third party libraries already support ARM in addition to x86. Most of today's Mac apps could be running on a hypothetical new ARM based Mac with developers doing little more than ticking an additional architecture box in Xcode and recompiling. Apple has everything that kept MS from succeeding with their ARM desktop OS transition and could even make the leap relatively smoothly.
    - TazeTSchnitzel 10y ago
      Microsoft have tried to run Windows on multiple platforms before, and IIRC, failed. NT was available for the Alpha and MIPS, but I believe almost everything had to be emulated.
    - alkonaut 10y ago
      "Full" emulation has to be provided - that is, an emulator that lets ALL Windows programs written years ago to be run on ARM Windows without recompilation. They have started to move to platform independence with UWP, but legacy software must also work otherwise it's not Windows.
  - IOT_Apprentice 10y ago
    Um, Microsoft was selling a surface device that ran on ARM, in addition to the Intel version.

bunderbunder 10y ago

A shift to ARM is a big deal for developers, so they'd probably want to give them a year like they did the last time this happened. It's also the kind of thing that Apple would want to announce at WWDC. We just had one of those a couple months ago, so that makes the next opportunity for a switchover more like summer 2018.

TheCondor 10y ago

Isn't this called the iPad Pro? PowerPC to Intel had some built in advantages: Intel was really pulling away from PowerPC and it gave Apple immediate hardware parity. Before Intel you could love their software but there were real questions about performance. The advantages with arm seem less obvious, why would you do anything but let the market decide? Build up bigger and better iPad pros until it erodes you MacBook market.

adamlett 10y ago

The shift to Intel was a move of necessity, a huge risk, and ultimately a major pain for Apple's customers not talk about third party developers. Apple took a huge hit to their goodwill. That was predictable, but they went ahead and did it anyway. Why? Because they had to. PowerPC was falling further and further behind. It was alright for Macs to be more expensive than PCs, but more expensive and slower? Furthermore, PowerPC was holding Apple back from taking the Mac where they wanted it to go (ultralight laptops). None of the issues that caused the Intel transition apply to Apple now. Intel is not holding Apple back, because Apple already uses its own chips in what it considers the future of computing: iOS devices. At the same time Macs use exactly the same chips as PCs, which means there is no risk that PCs will suddenly leapfrog the Macs. There is in other word no major need to make a shift. But the risks in doing so would be the same. Apple would once again be pissing of its customers and 3rd party developers. And for what? A marginal improvement in battery life? To save a fragment on bill of materials on a product line which already enjoys healthy margins, but which also is a tiny fragment of their overall business?

h1d 10y ago
Last time I checked, PC desktop were dominated by Windows by about 90% market share and that market, while shifting to mobile, isn't tiny either. If they could come up with a desktop that is as small as Apple TV while providing enough performance of a large box desktop or shaves off 300g off of laptop without compromise or doubles battery power, that would be shocking even to average consumers. As I have been losing interest on Apple products for the past 5 years not seeing much of innovations, I think it's time they take the risk while they can. It's a shocking news if x86 drags Intel (and to some extent Windows) to secondary position, if Apple does it right.
- shanusmagnus 10y ago
  I think you vastly overestimate how much average consumers and businesses know or care about any of those issues. Apple could release a chip that was 500% faster than the equivalent Intel chip while only consuming 75% of the power and it wouldn't move the needle on the distribution of Mac vs. Windows purchases. The vast majority of people and businesses who buy Windows buy in for the ecosystem and nothing else.

melling 10y ago

Shouldn't the iPad simply become the MacBook Air? There will be a convergence with the low-end laptop. It's simply a matter of getting desktop software running on iOS. As with the new Airpods, you instantly pair your keyboard, if it's not attached, and mouse. Apple's strength is iOS so they should grow it into the laptop.

satysin 10y ago

I have been predicting this for a while. I keep saying "hmm maybe in a year or two" but it never seems to happen :) I still believe the future of macOS will be ARM though. Apple have invested so damn much in making their own SoC that I can't imagine them not going that way. Soon (within a year or two? heh) they will have an SoC that they can pop in the MacBook and performance will be so close to the m-series Intel chip that only lab benchmarks will show a difference (and even that will be tiny). Once that happens Apple will own the own compute process. While very cool it also sucks as I have no doubt the Mac will become as locked down a iOS. No sideloading and certainly no dualbooting. The Mac will essentially be yet another appliance albeit it one with some kind of development environment. It won't be something you can hack on though (well not without having to actually hack it first).