3 ms·

Will be interesting to see if native iOS apps will be able to run for development or regular use. This is a good sign for the convergence of the Mac and "i" pro

Will be interesting to see if native iOS apps will be able to run for development or regular use. This is a good sign for the convergence of the Mac and "i" products. For fun here's the "transitions" talk Steve Jobs gave announcing the switch from PowerPC to Intel processors. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghdTqnYnFyg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghdTqnYnFyg

jaxondu 9y ago
This is not a switch from Intel to ARM for Mac, but a ARM coprocessor in Mac similar to new MacBook Pro that handles the Touchbar and Secure Enclave for TouchID. Apple don't even like the idea of touch interface for Mac apps, so its unlikely they will open up running of iOS apps on the Mac. Curious to see if new Mac from now onwards will still support TouchID as Apple has said that they are abandoning Touch ID on the iPhone. Makes no sense to support TouchID on just one platform, the minor one.
- cybermancy 9y ago
  I don't think we really know what it could be yet. Looks to be a inroad to phasing in ARM chips in Mac products.
  - tmzt 9y ago
    It could just be about doubling the battery life automatically for typical workloads. The A10 could even be running OSX like the Apple TV allowing Apple to port their own apps to it making the experience pretty seemless.
0x0 9y ago
Converging the Mac and the i products sounds like a terrible idea, as long as iOS insists on running non-windowed apps. Serious workloads is very inefficient without a proper windowed desktop environment combined with a Finder and a Terminal that can access files across all apps. Also, having an x86-compatible CPU at the core enables high enough performance for virtualbox/vmware, which is a huge enabler in that it allows running windows or linux VMs side by side (or even integrated) with the native desktop. A converged ARM-based Macbook sounds very much like a toy computer; a facebook+youtube media consumption station with an option for perhaps doing limited creative work such as composing an iMovie or touching up some photos at the most.
- cybermancy 9y ago
  Well I don't think Apple will be as senseless as they have been with the iPad Pro. I think they will converge them, but continue to support classic Mac interaction models (keyboard + mouse). With all the competition from Microsoft's Surface lineup we'll probably see the iPad shift even more towards the Mac side of interaction as well. To your second point about performance: have we really seen what a high wattage ARM CPU can do?
  - 0x0 9y ago
    I'm sure we'll see ARM CPUs with native performance on par with x86 soon, but not for running x86 binaries at full speed (i.e. windows/linux VMs).
- coldtea 9y ago
  >A converged ARM-based Macbook sounds very much like a toy computer; a facebook+youtube media consumption station with an option for perhaps doing limited creative work such as composing an iMovie or touching up some photos at the most. What you describe as a "toy computer" is actually an indestructible and hella-great main business computer for a huge majority of people. Most people aren't designers or videographers or programmers -- including most Mac users. What you dismiss as "Facebook" is actually the browser, which is how most business users do their business day in, day out (plus some office suite and so on). So what you describe will be more like a Chromebook done right.
  - 0x0 9y ago
    Nothing wrong with a device like that - put a keyboard and mouse on the iPad and go at it. But please don't take away the option of having a real computer Macbook for the rest of us.
    - coldtea 9y ago
      Sure, I agree with that too. I'm all those things the main public is not (programmer as main trade, but make films and music on the side). I hope we'll always have that general flexibility. That said, I prefer something closed-but-works-98%-of-the-time like macOS's graphics engine (Quartz or whatever is called) than the infinitely flexible X-Windows (or whatever graphics engine/compositor rules Linux distros now) that seldom works properly and people write things in reviews like "it worked with my graphic card just fine on the first try" as if this is still allowed to be a good surprise in 2017.
jmull 9y ago
In terms of running iOS apps for regular use, it makes no sense to run apps designed for handheld touch screen devices on a non-touchscreen device where the display is fixed. For development, what’s the advantage over the current system where your app is compiled for x86? It would still run in something like the simulator app and have similar drawbacks. I’m more excited for possibilities like FaceID, not to mention other uses for the secure enclave. Purely speculating from a position of ignorance, but I wonder if this might be able to take over for a variety of coprocessors.)
thought_alarm 9y ago
Every iOS app already runs natively on Intel. Adding an ARM co-processor to the Mac doesn't change that situation.
- umanwizard 9y ago
  It's possible to compile iOS apps for x86 if you have the source, but this x86 version is not included in what's shipped to the app store.
- vardump 9y ago
  > Every iOS app already runs natively on Intel. For simple apps this is more or less true. More complicated cases might not behave same. For example, ARMv8 and x86 have different memory models. So execution won't be equivalent. You can have concurrency bugs in your code that only manifest on ARMv8. I'm sure there are a lot of other examples of differences as well.

jaxondu 9y ago

This is not a switch from Intel to ARM for Mac, but a ARM coprocessor in Mac similar to new MacBook Pro that handles the Touchbar and Secure Enclave for TouchID. Apple don't even like the idea of touch interface for Mac apps, so its unlikely they will open up running of iOS apps on the Mac. Curious to see if new Mac from now onwards will still support TouchID as Apple has said that they are abandoning Touch ID on the iPhone. Makes no sense to support TouchID on just one platform, the minor one.

cybermancy 9y ago
I don't think we really know what it could be yet. Looks to be a inroad to phasing in ARM chips in Mac products.
- tmzt 9y ago
  It could just be about doubling the battery life automatically for typical workloads. The A10 could even be running OSX like the Apple TV allowing Apple to port their own apps to it making the experience pretty seemless.

0x0 9y ago

Converging the Mac and the i products sounds like a terrible idea, as long as iOS insists on running non-windowed apps. Serious workloads is very inefficient without a proper windowed desktop environment combined with a Finder and a Terminal that can access files across all apps. Also, having an x86-compatible CPU at the core enables high enough performance for virtualbox/vmware, which is a huge enabler in that it allows running windows or linux VMs side by side (or even integrated) with the native desktop. A converged ARM-based Macbook sounds very much like a toy computer; a facebook+youtube media consumption station with an option for perhaps doing limited creative work such as composing an iMovie or touching up some photos at the most.

cybermancy 9y ago
Well I don't think Apple will be as senseless as they have been with the iPad Pro. I think they will converge them, but continue to support classic Mac interaction models (keyboard + mouse). With all the competition from Microsoft's Surface lineup we'll probably see the iPad shift even more towards the Mac side of interaction as well. To your second point about performance: have we really seen what a high wattage ARM CPU can do?
- 0x0 9y ago
  I'm sure we'll see ARM CPUs with native performance on par with x86 soon, but not for running x86 binaries at full speed (i.e. windows/linux VMs).
coldtea 9y ago
>A converged ARM-based Macbook sounds very much like a toy computer; a facebook+youtube media consumption station with an option for perhaps doing limited creative work such as composing an iMovie or touching up some photos at the most. What you describe as a "toy computer" is actually an indestructible and hella-great main business computer for a huge majority of people. Most people aren't designers or videographers or programmers -- including most Mac users. What you dismiss as "Facebook" is actually the browser, which is how most business users do their business day in, day out (plus some office suite and so on). So what you describe will be more like a Chromebook done right.
- 0x0 9y ago
  Nothing wrong with a device like that - put a keyboard and mouse on the iPad and go at it. But please don't take away the option of having a real computer Macbook for the rest of us.
  - coldtea 9y ago
    Sure, I agree with that too. I'm all those things the main public is not (programmer as main trade, but make films and music on the side). I hope we'll always have that general flexibility. That said, I prefer something closed-but-works-98%-of-the-time like macOS's graphics engine (Quartz or whatever is called) than the infinitely flexible X-Windows (or whatever graphics engine/compositor rules Linux distros now) that seldom works properly and people write things in reviews like "it worked with my graphic card just fine on the first try" as if this is still allowed to be a good surprise in 2017.

jmull 9y ago

In terms of running iOS apps for regular use, it makes no sense to run apps designed for handheld touch screen devices on a non-touchscreen device where the display is fixed. For development, what’s the advantage over the current system where your app is compiled for x86? It would still run in something like the simulator app and have similar drawbacks. I’m more excited for possibilities like FaceID, not to mention other uses for the secure enclave. Purely speculating from a position of ignorance, but I wonder if this might be able to take over for a variety of coprocessors.)

thought_alarm 9y ago

Every iOS app already runs natively on Intel. Adding an ARM co-processor to the Mac doesn't change that situation.

umanwizard 9y ago
It's possible to compile iOS apps for x86 if you have the source, but this x86 version is not included in what's shipped to the app store.
vardump 9y ago
> Every iOS app already runs natively on Intel. For simple apps this is more or less true. More complicated cases might not behave same. For example, ARMv8 and x86 have different memory models. So execution won't be equivalent. You can have concurrency bugs in your code that only manifest on ARMv8. I'm sure there are a lot of other examples of differences as well.