5 ms·

As I wrote in a similar thread I think Intel and x86 is already dead - the writing is on the wall - Intel just doesn't know it yet. Below is how I believe a ke

As I wrote in a similar thread I think Intel and x86 is already dead - the writing is on the wall - Intel just doesn't know it yet. Below is how I believe a key customer has already planned to leave the x86 architecture as nothing but a footnote in their history (alongside the remnants of PowerPC). --- Currently Apple relies on Intel for a major component in a key product. Strategically, Apple doesn't like to have to rely on a single source or supplier for key products. Apple will do whatever is possible to remove this reliance. Hence a prediction: within less than 5 years a Mac will be running on an Apple designed ARM processor. How? By slowly, step by step, providing a way towards this. Step 1. Migrate your OS to the new architecture (e.g. iOS already, OS X not far behind) - done Step 2. Migrate your developer base onto developer tools which you control and can easily change the architecture it targets (e.g. Xcode and LLVM) - done Step 3. Provide a space where problematic applications which use other VMs or rely directly on getting too close to the hardware are not welcome (e.g. a Mac App Store) - announced Step 4. Change the marketplace behaviour so that you control how the majority of applications are distributed and can quickly provide updates without user intervention. Such as an App store. Step 5. Release a new Macbook with an ARM processor, absolutely killing on form factor, price and battery performance that Intel cannot compete with. Encourage your Mac App Store developers to flick a switch in Xcode, to recompile and upload their new Universal (x86 & ARM) versions of their Apps to the Mac App Store. Result: you now control the processor direction and application distribution mechanism for a key product and no longer rely upon the whims of Intel. Apple is all about controlling an integrated experience for their customers. Currently Intel is getting in the way of this for the Mac product.

albertzeyer 16y ago
In addition: Extend Rosetta to translate x86 to ARM.
zppx 16y ago
What's next? Will Apple design their own GPUs instead of using third parties to design one for every product in the Apple Store just to control the costumer experience? What kind of business advantage Apple will have compared to NVidia that sells its technology? I think that Steve Jobs understands these questions very well, and that's partly what separate him from the Average Joe Tech-loving guy.
- happybuy 16y ago
  Apple has already licensed Imagination Technologies PowerVR graphics cores (both this and next generation) and hold a large portion of their stock (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLQ64592720090626 http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLQ64592720090626). Moving Macs to ARM means they can use these as the graphics cores, customise them, modify them and not deal with Nvidia if they don't want to.
protomyth 16y ago
I don't think the one supplier thing is the base problem. I think Intel's handling of NVIDIA and Intel's failure to provide a decent replacement with OpenCL compatibility is the major cause of tension. The comments Intel's executives are making about the iPad don't help either.
- happybuy 16y ago
  Yes, I agree to an extent. However if Intel weren't the only viable supplier then the handling of Nvidia and OpenCL compatibility issues wouldn't be as problematic for Apple as they are as they'd have an option to go to another supplier. They currently don't have that option in the x86 space.
  - protomyth 16y ago
    AMD could get there. Apple uses ATI parts and has the OpenCL optimizations for them. I don't really see it likely. I do wonder if AMD got bought would they still be able to keep the x86 licenses (not sure on what final settlement was).
tjmc 16y ago
Big problem with Step 5 - people couldn't run Windows on their Macbooks except under emulation. That would be a deal breaker for a lot of potential customers (pretty much all the gamers for example) and Apple knows it. Personally, I don't think the transition to ARM on the Mac will happen any time soon. Apple will just try to convince more people to buy iOS devices instead.
- sireat 16y ago
  I don't think ability to run Windows natively is something that Apple considers crucial. Sure it is nice, but not a dealbreaker. I believe the main reason Apple migrated away from PowerPC was unreliability(delays, heat, speed etc.) from the supplier and progression not compatibility with x86.
- loewenskind 16y ago
  >That would be a deal breaker for a lot of potential customers Today it would be, but mobile is really taking off. Who knows where we'll be in even 2 years. Maybe by step 5 the remaining things we have to have windows for (e.g. Office) simply wont be a requirement anymore.
  - eru 16y ago
    And to be frank, something like Office should be non-demanding enough to be fast enough emulated. (Of course software gets slower faster than hardware gets faster..)
  - listic 16y ago
    Well, it's not just Office, it's a great deal of games and specialized software. But yes, I'm afraid Apple can live with Macs not supporting Windows.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
rospaya 16y ago
You're talking about Apple, which has less than 10% of the worldwide computer market. What about Dell and HP? Currently the software commands the hardware, not the other way around. A lot of businesses depend on MS Windows and lots of other x86 software, too much for a simple switch to ARM. Apple could do it because they have a firm grip on their ecosystem, but the rest of the market isn't in such a position.

albertzeyer 16y ago

In addition: Extend Rosetta to translate x86 to ARM.

zppx 16y ago

What's next? Will Apple design their own GPUs instead of using third parties to design one for every product in the Apple Store just to control the costumer experience? What kind of business advantage Apple will have compared to NVidia that sells its technology? I think that Steve Jobs understands these questions very well, and that's partly what separate him from the Average Joe Tech-loving guy.

happybuy 16y ago
Apple has already licensed Imagination Technologies PowerVR graphics cores (both this and next generation) and hold a large portion of their stock (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLQ64592720090626 http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLQ64592720090626). Moving Macs to ARM means they can use these as the graphics cores, customise them, modify them and not deal with Nvidia if they don't want to.

protomyth 16y ago

I don't think the one supplier thing is the base problem. I think Intel's handling of NVIDIA and Intel's failure to provide a decent replacement with OpenCL compatibility is the major cause of tension. The comments Intel's executives are making about the iPad don't help either.

happybuy 16y ago
Yes, I agree to an extent. However if Intel weren't the only viable supplier then the handling of Nvidia and OpenCL compatibility issues wouldn't be as problematic for Apple as they are as they'd have an option to go to another supplier. They currently don't have that option in the x86 space.
- protomyth 16y ago
  AMD could get there. Apple uses ATI parts and has the OpenCL optimizations for them. I don't really see it likely. I do wonder if AMD got bought would they still be able to keep the x86 licenses (not sure on what final settlement was).

tjmc 16y ago

Big problem with Step 5 - people couldn't run Windows on their Macbooks except under emulation. That would be a deal breaker for a lot of potential customers (pretty much all the gamers for example) and Apple knows it. Personally, I don't think the transition to ARM on the Mac will happen any time soon. Apple will just try to convince more people to buy iOS devices instead.

sireat 16y ago
I don't think ability to run Windows natively is something that Apple considers crucial. Sure it is nice, but not a dealbreaker. I believe the main reason Apple migrated away from PowerPC was unreliability(delays, heat, speed etc.) from the supplier and progression not compatibility with x86.
loewenskind 16y ago
>That would be a deal breaker for a lot of potential customers Today it would be, but mobile is really taking off. Who knows where we'll be in even 2 years. Maybe by step 5 the remaining things we have to have windows for (e.g. Office) simply wont be a requirement anymore.
- eru 16y ago
  And to be frank, something like Office should be non-demanding enough to be fast enough emulated. (Of course software gets slower faster than hardware gets faster..)
- listic 16y ago
  Well, it's not just Office, it's a great deal of games and specialized software. But yes, I'm afraid Apple can live with Macs not supporting Windows.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

rospaya 16y ago

You're talking about Apple, which has less than 10% of the worldwide computer market. What about Dell and HP? Currently the software commands the hardware, not the other way around. A lot of businesses depend on MS Windows and lots of other x86 software, too much for a simple switch to ARM. Apple could do it because they have a firm grip on their ecosystem, but the rest of the market isn't in such a position.