12 ms·

Apple: No Macintosh Forks. But the iPad...

116 points by evo_9 7y ago

spectramax 7y ago
Does anyone find the use of the word "fork" outside of open-source projects a bit annoying? BMW forked their 3-series coupe and called it 4-series. Ugh...
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- dfee 7y ago
  I just ate dinner with the in-laws and can attest to the fact that most Americans refer to the utensil with prongs at the end: a fork.
- gonzo 7y ago
  Will you also complain about Yogi Bera's "When You Come to a Fork in the Road, Take It! Inspiration and Wisdom from One of Baseball's Greatest Heroes", published in 2001?
  - taneq 7y ago
    But that doesn’t verb the fork...
- zcrackerz 7y ago
  The word fork has been used for various things in computing long before Github was around. I agree it's a bit overused in this article, but you have the Unix fork command, which creates a copy of the current process and effectively forks the execution. Older Macs of the 80's and 90's used a filesystem that allowed files to have both a data fork and a resource fork; they worked like independent streams to separate program data and embedded resources like images, sounds, etc.
- saagarjha 7y ago
  This has a long history, even on Mac OS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_fork https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_fork
Moto7451 7y ago
I don’t think the argument holds very well. Apple has made three processor architectural changes including one on the current OS. “Too complicated” doesn’t really align with the execution history Apple has. The fat binary support Apple has is a huge tool and the ability to add instructions and optimizations to their chips to help with x86 emulation is a big deal. I don’t know if Apple will ever actually do this, but it seems odd to suggest it’s not feasible given past performance and their current technology holdings.
- pvg 7y ago
  The past cases are qualitatively different - an architecture switch to much more powerful processors with some degree of software backward compatibility provided. That's not yet a practical option.
- sjwright 7y ago
  Furthermore I predict that Apple won’t treat it like a transition, rather it will be a long term dual platform strategy. They’ll encourage developers to build fat binaries and have good x86 translation support in the interim. But it’ll be long term, at least five years. Standard iMacs and MacBooks will be moved over to ARM quickly, higher-end iMacs and possibly some MBP SKUs a few years later, pro devices will stay Intel indefinitely. The transition only needs to end if and when Apple can beat Intel/AMD for uncompromising high performance. Maybe that will happen, but until then, fat binaries are a perfect solution.
  - vlozko 7y ago
    There’s definitely some common threads with this and Apple’s push to have apps use bitcode. It would make this duality a lot easier from an app distribution perspective without the need to have an emulation layer. My only guess as to why Apple hasn’t required bitcode by now is the sheer number of 3rd party libraries out there that aren’t built with bitcode enabled.
    - je42 7y ago
      they are forcing notarization in the next OS-X update. this means they can eventually force bitcode.
kccqzy 7y ago
It doesn't make much sense. The processor architecture should be an implementation detail to a user. This has very little to do with product lines.
- dmix 7y ago
  We’re the only people who know what a T2 is too. I doubt that had big marketing implications like they are trying to spin ‘Axx’. Absent some geopolitical/supply chain risk.
ChuckMcM 7y ago
I see a lot of Surface Pro in the iPad[1]. That isn't a bad thing, it is great to have two design studios trying to out do each other. If you agree that these devices should work better on ARM chips rather than x86 chips, then the iPad has an advantage with an already ARM based ecosystem. Of course the Surface R/T tried that too, and stumbled. But I wonder if Apple saw that as a hint of where Microsoft might go. I find it particularly interesting that at both companies these are the products that have a license to kill sacred cows[2]. The Surface R/T was "Windows on NOT Intel", the iPad has "stylus improved UI". Both of these were antithetic to Gates and Jobs way of thinking. Both products (and I've got several different generations of both) feel to me like the "post PC" product. An application focused, battery operated, network aware device. I am a bit surprised that Surface hasn't embraced cellular connectivity as strongly as the iPad has, that is a key feature of "on the go" computing.[3] [1] And chuckled when the new ones had the pen attach with magnets. [2] The colloquialism, "that is a sacred cow." meaning a feature or rule that cannot be broken. [3] Yeah, I know the 'tether it to your phone' mantra, I get that a lot, but it simpler (lower friction) to have it built in.
- mktmkr 7y ago
  I strongly prefer tethering to network awareness. Every computer I've had with a WWAN card has thought it would be terribly clever if all the sockets get reset every time the air interface flaps. It's network aware! Tethering is far superior because your laptop never learns that the mobile link was down for a moment.
- mepian 7y ago
  I don't know how "Windows on NOT Intel" was antithetic to Gates way of thinking when Windows NT was running on most major RISC platforms while they were still relevant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_NT#Supported_platforms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_NT#Supported_platforms
  - ChuckMcM 7y ago
    That is a good point.
- 7y ago
jackvalentine 7y ago
My prediction is an A-series Mac won’t start from the bottom up it’ll start top down - beginning with a Mac Pro addin card.
- OldHand2018 7y ago
  Perhaps like the "Math co-processor" in the 386 days? Imagine a future generation T-series chip with the neural cores that the A-series chips have. Accessible using the existing frameworks that you are already using. Or adding GPU cores to the MacBook Pro lineup as a replacement for the AMD GPUs that they have now. And while they are doing that, they can release a Smart Keyboard for a future iPad Pro that has a trackpad. That's got to be one of the least risky ways to try out the iPad as a laptop replacement. If it's a flop, you're out the $150 or whatever it would cost but still have a perfectly good iPad that you keep using as an iPad. Apple is in the position to take a "lets see where this takes us" approach. As long as they keep the OS and Frameworks from drifting apart, there are a lot of nice things that could happen.
  - reaperducer 7y ago
    386? Where's the love for Intel's 8087? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_8087 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_8087
    - NikkiA 7y ago
      Everyone with any sense was running Weitek back in those days.
- michaelt 7y ago
  Seems to me if you write Mac software, supporting a new main CPU would be at the top of your backlog - whereas supporting an optional accelerator card would be much less urgent.
runjake 7y ago
For some context: the author of this article, Jean-Louis Gassée, was a former director at Apple, founded Be, Inc. and was chairman at PalmSource for a while. His background may help or hurt his viewpoint, depending on how you see things. I will say that I disagree with his points. And I'll also point out that the Mac ARM transition is happening right before our eyes with the T2 chip, which replaces a bunch of system components (memory, i/o, disk controllers, etc) with an ARM-based platform. Practically, the only thing that hasn't been replaced are the main CPU and the GPU, but it's only a matter of time.
- mktmkr 7y ago
  Sorry, what do you mean? On a current MacBook Pro the memory is controlled by the CPU and the disk is attached to a PCIe root port also on the CPU. The "disk controller" as such has moved into the disk.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - kalleboo 7y ago
    The only way to access the soldered-in NAND storage is through the T2 chip, which encrypts everything on-the-fly with a unique burned-in AES key. The T2 also acts as the SSD controller, controlling the raw NAND chips. You can see this in an iMac Pro teardown, as the removeable "SSDs" in it only have flash chips on them, no controller. The T2 is not involved with memory access AFAIK though. As for I/O, it does handle the audio and camera access.
    - mktmkr 7y ago
      Seems like a distinction without a difference. On any PC with an SSD there is "a controller" and "some NAND" the difference with the recent Apple gear is they've changed which part you can remove and replace, and which you cannot. My computer also has NAND you can only address through a dedicated controller that handles the encryption, but I don't think of it as indicative of a revolution.
flomo 7y ago
My take on the iPad form-factor hasn't really changed since the introduction. Its really great for certain casual use cases, but as soon as you sit down at a desk to get some work done, oh god does this fucking suck. And the keyboard cases actually make it worse because you delude yourself into thinking it makes it better, when it does not. So an iOS/iPadOS laptop with full KVM support always seemed like a no-brainer in my mind. Or at least a much more obvious move than MacOS/ARM (which would split a small ecosystem behind the only logic that "they did it before and it worked out".) Plus 'the future' is obviously iOS.
- reaperducer 7y ago
  And the keyboard cases actually make it worse because you delude yourself into thinking it makes it better, when it does not. When I was given my iPad I didn't want to buy a keyboard case. But sometimes I need a keyboard. I happened to have an extra Apple Wireless Keyboard, and it works fantastically. Wireless. Full-sized. And it's only slightly larger than the 9" iPad. I just throw them both in my bag.
  - flomo 7y ago
    (1) Nah, it certainly doesn't work "fantastically", but might work decently enough for you if you have bought an additional ipad stand. (2) If this was some really great solution and not just your personal workaround, Apple would have been promoting it years ago. My point is the only way iPadOS can displace laptops is to be a laptop. Not this tablet-stand bullshit.
- brantonb 7y ago
  I love my iPad with the keyboard case. When I hook it up to an external monitor and my Kinesis keyboard, it’s even better. I’m looking forward to mouse support in iOS 13. One of my favorite apps when it comes to the keyboard is Blink. It’s an SSH/Mosh client with a limited local shell. I use it to build a Jekyll site on an EC2 instance. Blink supports multi-monitor, so I can have different shells on different screens. Multi-window in iOS 13 is going to be another game changer. This is the best device I’ve owned and I’m excited about what’s to come.
hartator 7y ago
Such a bad analysis. Switching CPU architecture has been done before in the macos ecosystem. And it has been successful.
- NikkiA 7y ago
  Both times were out of necessity though.
  - sbuk 7y ago
    Arguably, the necessity here would be energy consumption, thermal performance and potentially speed?
    - kevingadd 7y ago
      That's not really necessity unless you can show that the current values for those 3 are insufficient and that an Axx transition will produce big gains in at least 2 of those 3 areas, is it? Even if native apps compiled and written for the Axx architecture have better energy and thermal performance, what about all the x86 apps that have to be emulated? There'll be a tax for that. It could be worse. Intel-based macs are probably wasting some power that Axx would theoretically not waste, and Axx might theoretically have better thermals, but there's not some massive demand for Apple to upend the whole ecosystem like that. Does Apple have competition threatening to steal their lunch because Macbooks' battery life isn't long enough? Not really, no?
      - sbuk 7y ago
        I did say ‘arguably‘ ;) > Even if native apps compiled and written for the Axx architecture have better energy and thermal performance, what about all the x86 apps that have to be emulated? There'll be a tax for that. Initially, probably. Think of the long game. This is something they have already done, twice. They have the experience and expertise to make this less impactful. > Even if native apps compiled and written for the Axx architecture have better energy and thermal performance, what about all the x86 apps that have to be emulated? There'll be a tax for that. Longer battery life is always preferable in portable devices, no? Alternatively, what about the reduction in the need for the materials, therefore the environmental impact, used in making batteries for laptops? Apple want to be the greenest manufacturer.
kristianp 7y ago
I agree that Apple would prefer to use the ipad pro as a way to migrate users from their intel machines. I bet there's more margin in an ipad pro than a macbook pro.
reitzensteinm 7y ago
I don't buy the permanent fork argument for one reason. AMD had the cancelled ARM version of Zen. There aren't any public plans to bring it back as far as I'm aware. But if Apple transitions past x86, it's going to provide critical mass for desktop ARM and the Zen chip will be back. AMD would be sitting on the highest performance single socket ARM chip, and Apple would just use that.
- SkyMarshal 7y ago
  I can't see Apple using any ARM chip other than their own. If they commit to converting OS X to ARM then they'll either produce it in-house or, less likely, buy AMD (or maybe just buy AMD's Zen tech only). One of the main reasons for Apple to move to ARM is to control more of their technology stack. It's the direction they've been moving in for a while now and this would be part of that strategy.
  - reitzensteinm 7y ago
    The article claims Apple would need to keep x86 around indefinitely for the Mac Pro - I'm just saying that makes no sense. Apple would definitely prefer to only use its own chips, but if they're unable to, using ARM Zen from AMD makes a million times more sense than x86 Intel. I think you may be underestimating Apple's willingness to let the Mac Pro be an ugly duckling. This is a platform that they left stagnant for years after all.
    - SkyMarshal 7y ago
      >but if they're unable to, using ARM Zen from AMD makes a million times more sense than x86 Intel. How do you figure? Transitioning from x86 to ARM would be a major, expensive undertaking. If it's justified at all it would mainly be by Apple gaining control over that part of their stack. I doubt they would make such an effort and investment only to switch from the current third party, Intel, to a different third party, AMD. But otherwise yes they're really not likely to make the transition at all. Given how small a proportion of their overall sales Mac sales are, they're most likely to just leave it on x86 indefinitely.
vermontdevil 7y ago
Would Apple be looking at RISC-V as another option here?
- vineyardmike 7y ago
  Apple has already spent significant engineering effort to develop internal ARM chips, so RISCV doesn't seem on the horizon. That said, at least one apple researcher has probably looked at RISC-V at some point, given their size and budget.
- Dunedan 7y ago
  Extremely unlikely. The beauty about RISC-V is that it's open source and royalty free. Both arguments aren't that relevant for Apple, as they got an architectural license from ARM which gives them full access to everything and allows them to design their own chips and because the royalty charges are vanishingly small compared to the prices Apple charges for it's products. Apple has also already invested so much effort in its own ARM chips that I believe it wouldn't make much sense for them to throw that away in favor of RISC-V, just for saving a few million dollars per year in royalties.
  - fluffything 7y ago
    > Extremely unlikely. The beauty about RISC-V is that it's open source and royalty free The other beauty is that you can extend the ISA with whatever proprietary instructions you want. Others develop 99% of the ISA for you, and you focus on the 1% that differentiates your product. I'm not sure if the ARM licenses allows them to extend the ISA with "Apple-only" instructions, but RISC-V does and it allows Apple for more vendor lock-in. E.g. you can't use a Hackintosh anymore without buying a CPU directly from Apple.
    - sokoloff 7y ago
      I think Apple could stop Hackintoshing on Intel (in a practical sense) if they really cared to do so. There will always be the extreme fringe who would get it to work, but it's so easy at the moment to get a fully functioning Hackintosh (including iCloud, iMessage, App Store, etc) that I have to believe Apple is both aware and doesn't care to try to stop it.
lyime 7y ago
I don’t believe Apple will transition away from x86 anytime soon but for different reasons. They would abandon the pro market if it moved to arm. Most x86 pro applications would have to be rewritten. What would be the incentive for software makers? Apple might very will be able to bring out a arm stack for consumer market but there is no indication that they can compete with x86 pro or server market.
- whatshisface 7y ago
  Rewritten or recompiled?
  - viraptor 7y ago
    Somewhere in between. First patched, possibly significantly, then recompiled. Unless you have a lot of low level processing in ASM or intrinsics for simd. Then there will be a bit of rewriting.
- eridius 7y ago
  They did a migration like this once already for PPC -> Intel (twice if you count 68k -> PPC).
  - armitron 7y ago
    PPC was niche compared to Intel. So they moved from a dying ecosystem to a thriving one. If they moved from AMD64 to ARM, they would be doing the opposite. AMD64 is not going anywhere on the desktop and is by far the undisputed performance king. Not to mention how many shops and pro end-users they would instantly lose. The number of developers that run macOS and depend on AMD64 virtual machines must be enormous. Given how much Microsoft is embracing Linux, it would be commercial suicide for Apple to abandon the AMD64 platform since they would be driving all these devs to their competition.
  - lyime 7y ago
    That was a different time. They had to do that otherwise they were dead. PPC was not keeping up with Intel.
dehrmann 7y ago
ARM on the Macbook Pro would put a lot of software shops (I'm guessing tech and design firms are the main purchasers of Macs) using Docker in an awkward spot with their containers not running on dev machines.
- eridius 7y ago
  Do these shops have to use the exact same container on their dev machine as elsewhere? Can they not build an ARM flavor of their container? Same Dockerfile but with an ARM base image instead of an x86_64 base image?
  - dehrmann 7y ago
    Generally no, but it's been convenient to have the architectures match up. It minimizes surprises. Different architectures also make people ask if they should switch to PCs.
- pjmlp 7y ago
  Those shops are deploying into Linux servers anyway, so they would be better off supporting an Linux OEM. We use our Macs for Design (Sketch, Zepplin, Adobe), Web (via Java) and native iOS/macOS development, I am yet to hear anyone caring about docker beyond conference talks.
  - _ph_ 7y ago
    But developers using Macs for x86 Linux development is a common thing. Besides that they actually also might need the Mac part (Office, other software requirements), it certainly would be a hit to Apple, if those developers dropped the Macs. I am one developer using a MacBook Pro at work, but depend on the ability to run x86-Linux VMs. I could not use an ARM-Based Laptop for work.
    - pjmlp 7y ago
      Those developers would be better off supporting Linux OEMs. That is what I did with my Asus travel netbook (1215 B), which was sold with Ubuntu LTS pre-installed.
walterbell 7y ago
Apple would like to be less reliant on both Qualcomm (radio/modem) and Intel (CPU). Qualcomm is ahead on 5G and Intel was behind on 5G and 10nm. Apple needs TSMC's 5nm performance-per-watt for AR glasses and moving MacOS from x86 to Arm, and it carries keyboard debt into the post-Ive era. - Qualcomm settlement bridges the 5G modem gap - Intel modem acquihire rekindles dream of radio autonomy - Did Intel modem deal delay "x86-Arm" mobile Mac transition? - Can 16" Macbook + 2015 keyboard buy time for new designs?
jbverschoor 7y ago
> Today, I’ll contend that moving the macOs to an Axx processor is a fantasy, it’s too complicated and will never happen, at least no time soon. Mac users are wedded to x86 processors for the foreseeable future. No wonder Be Inc went belly up. Apple had switched before from architecture.
- raverbashing 7y ago
  Be Inc went belly up because of MS anti-competitive practices. Vendors would get a discount if they shipped only windows computers
- kevingadd 7y ago
  To imagine that the transition from ppc to x86 is remotely comparable to a present-day x86-to-ARM transition is utterly absurd. Basically everything has changed: Hardware architectures, software architectures, OS design, etc. The amount of software out there for x86 macs is massive and end users are going to expect all that stuff to work (even if they'll grumble and accept it when Apple tells them that only 50% of it will work). You're also having to maintain compatibility with a massive set of third party hardware used by creatives, developers and enthusiasts - are you gonna run those drivers in an emulator? In kernel mode? This would be an undertaking beyond any past one, because in the past computers were much simpler and Apple controlled a bigger part of the picture. Now they're shipping elaborate GPUs and hardware stacks that mash together chips from various vendors and there's a ton of third party hardware and software all working on top of it. If they don't keep most of that working users won't stand for it. Something like "we need to get AMD or NVIDIA to provide us a top-tier video driver for the Axx instruction set and convince them not to demand a king's ransom for it" would not have been an obstacle in the PPC days but it's unavoidable now unless they want to ship their own GPU too (which they could do, but again, compatibility)
techrich 7y ago
He is right for right now, but the long game is the axx chip in most apple products. The MacPro won’t have one, if it’s still around then. ipad pros will get a dock much like today’s dell usb type c docks. you will connect up to your screen while at your desk. do what you need to do with the keyboard and mouse. Even have a vdi app for access to some corp windows only apps. Then unplug it for meetings with note taking etc. It sounds like an interesting future.
ken 7y ago
Every analysis I've read, including this one, assumes that Apple would start at the bottom rather than the top, as they have with every other CPU transition in the history of the company. Is there something especially difficult about making a high-core-count CPU? The A-series is already crushing single-threaded performance and they're competitive with Intel desktop CPUs for some applications. Once you have a high-performance CPU with multi-core capabilities, is there any reason you can't just copy/paste cores?
- _ph_ 7y ago
  It isn't especially difficult, but is is expensive. The big challenge with CPU design is to make up for the costs and for that you need numbers. In the 90ies, there were plenty of high-performance CPU designs, Alpha, Sparc, Mips. They were alle killed by two mechanisms, that Intel had a lead in fab technology and that Intel had much higher numbers, consequentely could gain back much higher investments as the competitors could afford. The big question wouldn't be whether Apple could make a high-performance ARM, but if the financials play out for it. The Mac Pro numbers certainly wouldn't pay for such a CPU development. This could change of course, if they would bring back the Xserve in a modern incarnation or find some other uses for a high-performance ARM cpu.
  - yoz-y 7y ago
    But Apple does not need to be a good or efficient fab because TSMC and Global Foundries already exist. One of the cited reasons for ARM transition is specifically that Intel fab sucks and their CPUs have been lagging in performance per watt for years.
    - snazz 7y ago
      Performance per watt isn’t too important on the Mac Pro and the low volumes mean that developing a purpose-built chip would be extremely cost-prohibitive.
  - ken 7y ago
    > The Mac Pro numbers certainly wouldn't pay for such a CPU development. Again, though, what exactly does "development" mean here? Apple is already fabless. TSMC makes 32-core chips for AMD, so that scale is not new to them.
dmix 7y ago
It’s amazing to think the iPhone launched without copy and paste and now it’s a prominent feature on the iPadOS sales page. I’m a bit happy we’re movinf back to just letting people do stuff and let the developers figure out how to make it work.
- ken 7y ago
  Every feature on the macOS sales page today is something that macOS shipped without for almost 20 years (and Mac OS for almost 20 years before that). That's what sales pages are for: they show off the new features. Apple didn't withhold copy/paste out of spite. They were shipping a completely new platform, and you can't do everything in 1.0. For comparison, with the first version of the Macintosh system software, copy/paste crashed 50% of the time: https://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&story=Cut,_Paste_and_Crash.txt https://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&stor...
eecc 7y ago
Frankly I’m surprised no one hasn’t built an external core/ram expansion docking station yet. With OS support for Numa and a broker to schedule tasks on Big/Little cores all the pieces are there. My guess is the halo effect around the cloud that put these devices back into the drawers; when you can sync files across two conventional independent devices, risk aversion wins. But people might become aware and weary of routing everything through Facebook/Google so the value of cloudless mobility might tip the scale. Plus, if AR/VR ever takes off, the hardware for high bandwidth wired or not PAN will become available
- GordonS 7y ago
  > Frankly I’m surprised no one hasn’t built an external core/ram expansion docking station yet I imagine that the distance and all the connectivity required between the CPU and RAM sitting in an external docking station would destroy performance.
  - PetahNZ 7y ago
    How would this be much different to a GPU running over the PCIE bus?
  - eecc 7y ago
    Well, the point is that current interconnects are reducing this latency significantly, people are buying GPUs in external boxes today
- yjftsjthsd-h 7y ago
  Suddenly disconnecting a dock today is a minor annoyance; worst case, you lose some file descriptors/mountpoints, and network connections. If you plug in processors, accidentally unplugging outright drops processes, and likely panics the kernel.
  - eecc 7y ago
    Likely? Depends how the kernel mediates access to the detachable CPU facility. Hot plug CPU has been around forever, as well as Apple's GCD. Access to the pluggable CPU/RAM complex doesn't have to be transparent and irrecoverable on error.
BerislavLopac 7y ago
I have realised a long ago that Apple has for a long time now been working towards steering the Macintosh way from its open, Unix-based foundation. I used to work with the old MacOS, long before OSX, and it was just the way they wanted it: a closed platform with a nice (for the time) user interface and giving Apple full control over what is being developed on it and how. Dropping this platform for NeXTSTEP-based OS X was the right choice at the time it was made, when they needed a more advanced platform, and they needed it immediately. But the side effect was that it opened the Mac as a development platform, and Apple has since been trying to close it back, without affecting the existing users too hard. The success of mobile/tablet market allowed them to build a new, closed platform, with precisely the features described above. After MacBook Air was first released I expected them to soon release an OSX-based tablet, but I have soon realised that it is not going to happen: instead of pushing Mac to the tablets, they will more and more push iOS to the Mac, until they have one uniform platform that will make it nearly impossible to develop on except if sanctioned by Apple.
- jfkwingmsk 7y ago
  Which we’re going to see how that sits with antitrust law pretty soon.
  - scarface74 7y ago
    The same as “it sits” with console makers.....
- II2II 7y ago
  Anyone could develop software for the Macintosh prior to the release of OS X. There were third-party tools to do so. You could extend the system software. You could distribute your software as you pleased. Depending upon how you look at it, it was actually more open than OS X development since modern releases of OS X lock certain things down in the name of security. Both are a far cry from iOS development.
- scarface74 7y ago
  Apple full control over what is being developed on it and how. What “control” did Apple have on what was developed on classic MacOS? Famously, the only decent compiler during the early PPC years was made by a third party.
jillesvangurp 7y ago
Couple of points here: - Apple is about to ship a new mac os that comes with improved support for running ios/ipados applications as well as using an ipad as an extension of your screen. - The reason for the Mac Pro and the Mac Book Pro to exist is to enable professional artists, developers, and other people that need this kind of hardware to do their thing. Mostly they use tools not developed by Apple. E.g. Adobe is king for anything related to graphics. There are a bunch of third party 3D tools out there. Same for video. Same for Audio. Porting all of that to a new processor architecture will take a lot of time. It also has a severe risk of alienating developers and users during the transition. E.g. Adobe took their sweet time launching optimized versions of their tools for Intel ten years ago and meanwhile some users moved to Windows. - Mac developers targeting intel macs (i.e. all existing macs), would probably want to develop and test on the machines they are actually targeting. Building cpu/gpu intensive x86 software on an ARM architecture with an X86 emulator makes no sense. You'd want the real thing. Xcode on arm would be a hard sell (except for IOS developers). - A key money maker on IOS/IpadOS is the app store and the whole point of an ipad is that all the software comes from there. The whole point of Mac OS is that pro users get a lot of their software outside the app store. - VR/AR is slowly starting to happen and Apple has mostly ignored this on mac os and only done a little bit on IOS (AR mostly). Any hardware that Apple is going to launch here is extremely unlikely to involve Intel or AMD hardware. In fact I suspect this is the primary reason Apple has not pushed hard on this on mac OS: they are looking to disrupt this space with an Apple product that consists 100% of Apple hardware and software and are not interested in filling the gap short term by depending on third party hardware. So, a processor architecture change on mac os would be short term disruptive and risky. They have a coherent strategy for getting mac users to buy an ipad and double dip in revenue and it seems they are pushing a lot of users toward that platform. Also the pro market is comparatively small but extremely lucrative in its current form.
blinkingled 7y ago
Apple product ecosystem has fast become a solution looking for problem combined with touchy feely hokus pokus aided by synthetic exclusivity and nonsensical differentiation. Why the hell do we need the iPad to take over the PCs? Why the hell do we need ARM CPUs in Macs? Nobody is solving any real problems with those things - it's only purpose is to make Apple's margins and control even greater. And we as consumers are supposed to pay attention to the news outlets droning on about it for no benefit! I think Apple will do well going back to the basics - simplifying the product lines, selling what matters and focusing on increasing the reach of its products to price conscious buyers. I don't think the market has a big enough appetite for more BS however well marketed it may be.
- rubbingalcohol 7y ago
  The trash can Mac Pro and butterfly keyboards are perfect examples of solutions looking for problems. But I don't think making the iPad's operating system usable is an attempt to somehow position the devices as "PC killers." For use cases where a tablet is sufficient to produce a particular work product, a more usable OS only enhances its effectiveness. This has no bearing on the huge number of use cases where a tablet is insufficient. I agree with the author that Apple would be barking up the wrong tree trying to switch the Macs to ARM processors. Macs are already comparatively a low-volume market and segmenting that market would not do them any favors in the face of increasing competition from Microsoft and Linux implementations.
  - blinkingled 7y ago
    > But I don't think making the iPad's operating system usable is an attempt to somehow position the devices as "PC killers. I agree with that one - meaningful improvements to make the iPad a better choice for the users that can get away with using only the iPad as their primary device is a good thing. There's also a significant number of those users. But in practice, deciding what those capabilities are and how best to implement those are far more complicated questions - adding a mouse pointer is maybe a perfect illustration of the conundrum - should we, how should it look, what about the click targets, what about touch first, pencil etc.
bluthru 7y ago
I really hope there is a hybrid MBP with an Apple chip running mac OS and first party apps along with an intel chip that runs on demand for third party apps that need x86.

116 points by evo_9 7y ago

Does anyone find the use of the word "fork" outside of open-source projects a bit annoying? BMW forked their 3-series coupe and called it 4-series. Ugh...

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
dfee 7y ago
I just ate dinner with the in-laws and can attest to the fact that most Americans refer to the utensil with prongs at the end: a fork.
gonzo 7y ago
Will you also complain about Yogi Bera's "When You Come to a Fork in the Road, Take It! Inspiration and Wisdom from One of Baseball's Greatest Heroes", published in 2001?
- taneq 7y ago
  But that doesn’t verb the fork...
zcrackerz 7y ago
The word fork has been used for various things in computing long before Github was around. I agree it's a bit overused in this article, but you have the Unix fork command, which creates a copy of the current process and effectively forks the execution. Older Macs of the 80's and 90's used a filesystem that allowed files to have both a data fork and a resource fork; they worked like independent streams to separate program data and embedded resources like images, sounds, etc.
saagarjha 7y ago
This has a long history, even on Mac OS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_fork https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_fork

Moto7451 7y ago

I don’t think the argument holds very well. Apple has made three processor architectural changes including one on the current OS. “Too complicated” doesn’t really align with the execution history Apple has. The fat binary support Apple has is a huge tool and the ability to add instructions and optimizations to their chips to help with x86 emulation is a big deal. I don’t know if Apple will ever actually do this, but it seems odd to suggest it’s not feasible given past performance and their current technology holdings.

pvg 7y ago
The past cases are qualitatively different - an architecture switch to much more powerful processors with some degree of software backward compatibility provided. That's not yet a practical option.
sjwright 7y ago
Furthermore I predict that Apple won’t treat it like a transition, rather it will be a long term dual platform strategy. They’ll encourage developers to build fat binaries and have good x86 translation support in the interim. But it’ll be long term, at least five years. Standard iMacs and MacBooks will be moved over to ARM quickly, higher-end iMacs and possibly some MBP SKUs a few years later, pro devices will stay Intel indefinitely. The transition only needs to end if and when Apple can beat Intel/AMD for uncompromising high performance. Maybe that will happen, but until then, fat binaries are a perfect solution.
- vlozko 7y ago
  There’s definitely some common threads with this and Apple’s push to have apps use bitcode. It would make this duality a lot easier from an app distribution perspective without the need to have an emulation layer. My only guess as to why Apple hasn’t required bitcode by now is the sheer number of 3rd party libraries out there that aren’t built with bitcode enabled.
  - je42 7y ago
    they are forcing notarization in the next OS-X update. this means they can eventually force bitcode.

kccqzy 7y ago

It doesn't make much sense. The processor architecture should be an implementation detail to a user. This has very little to do with product lines.

dmix 7y ago
We’re the only people who know what a T2 is too. I doubt that had big marketing implications like they are trying to spin ‘Axx’. Absent some geopolitical/supply chain risk.

ChuckMcM 7y ago

I see a lot of Surface Pro in the iPad[1]. That isn't a bad thing, it is great to have two design studios trying to out do each other. If you agree that these devices should work better on ARM chips rather than x86 chips, then the iPad has an advantage with an already ARM based ecosystem. Of course the Surface R/T tried that too, and stumbled. But I wonder if Apple saw that as a hint of where Microsoft might go. I find it particularly interesting that at both companies these are the products that have a license to kill sacred cows[2]. The Surface R/T was "Windows on NOT Intel", the iPad has "stylus improved UI". Both of these were antithetic to Gates and Jobs way of thinking. Both products (and I've got several different generations of both) feel to me like the "post PC" product. An application focused, battery operated, network aware device. I am a bit surprised that Surface hasn't embraced cellular connectivity as strongly as the iPad has, that is a key feature of "on the go" computing.[3] [1] And chuckled when the new ones had the pen attach with magnets. [2] The colloquialism, "that is a sacred cow." meaning a feature or rule that cannot be broken. [3] Yeah, I know the 'tether it to your phone' mantra, I get that a lot, but it simpler (lower friction) to have it built in.

mktmkr 7y ago
I strongly prefer tethering to network awareness. Every computer I've had with a WWAN card has thought it would be terribly clever if all the sockets get reset every time the air interface flaps. It's network aware! Tethering is far superior because your laptop never learns that the mobile link was down for a moment.
mepian 7y ago
I don't know how "Windows on NOT Intel" was antithetic to Gates way of thinking when Windows NT was running on most major RISC platforms while they were still relevant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_NT#Supported_platforms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_NT#Supported_platforms
- ChuckMcM 7y ago
  That is a good point.
7y ago

jackvalentine 7y ago

My prediction is an A-series Mac won’t start from the bottom up it’ll start top down - beginning with a Mac Pro addin card.

OldHand2018 7y ago
Perhaps like the "Math co-processor" in the 386 days? Imagine a future generation T-series chip with the neural cores that the A-series chips have. Accessible using the existing frameworks that you are already using. Or adding GPU cores to the MacBook Pro lineup as a replacement for the AMD GPUs that they have now. And while they are doing that, they can release a Smart Keyboard for a future iPad Pro that has a trackpad. That's got to be one of the least risky ways to try out the iPad as a laptop replacement. If it's a flop, you're out the $150 or whatever it would cost but still have a perfectly good iPad that you keep using as an iPad. Apple is in the position to take a "lets see where this takes us" approach. As long as they keep the OS and Frameworks from drifting apart, there are a lot of nice things that could happen.
- reaperducer 7y ago
  386? Where's the love for Intel's 8087? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_8087 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_8087
  - NikkiA 7y ago
    Everyone with any sense was running Weitek back in those days.
michaelt 7y ago
Seems to me if you write Mac software, supporting a new main CPU would be at the top of your backlog - whereas supporting an optional accelerator card would be much less urgent.

runjake 7y ago

For some context: the author of this article, Jean-Louis Gassée, was a former director at Apple, founded Be, Inc. and was chairman at PalmSource for a while. His background may help or hurt his viewpoint, depending on how you see things. I will say that I disagree with his points. And I'll also point out that the Mac ARM transition is happening right before our eyes with the T2 chip, which replaces a bunch of system components (memory, i/o, disk controllers, etc) with an ARM-based platform. Practically, the only thing that hasn't been replaced are the main CPU and the GPU, but it's only a matter of time.

mktmkr 7y ago
Sorry, what do you mean? On a current MacBook Pro the memory is controlled by the CPU and the disk is attached to a PCIe root port also on the CPU. The "disk controller" as such has moved into the disk.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- kalleboo 7y ago
  The only way to access the soldered-in NAND storage is through the T2 chip, which encrypts everything on-the-fly with a unique burned-in AES key. The T2 also acts as the SSD controller, controlling the raw NAND chips. You can see this in an iMac Pro teardown, as the removeable "SSDs" in it only have flash chips on them, no controller. The T2 is not involved with memory access AFAIK though. As for I/O, it does handle the audio and camera access.
  - mktmkr 7y ago
    Seems like a distinction without a difference. On any PC with an SSD there is "a controller" and "some NAND" the difference with the recent Apple gear is they've changed which part you can remove and replace, and which you cannot. My computer also has NAND you can only address through a dedicated controller that handles the encryption, but I don't think of it as indicative of a revolution.

flomo 7y ago

My take on the iPad form-factor hasn't really changed since the introduction. Its really great for certain casual use cases, but as soon as you sit down at a desk to get some work done, oh god does this fucking suck. And the keyboard cases actually make it worse because you delude yourself into thinking it makes it better, when it does not. So an iOS/iPadOS laptop with full KVM support always seemed like a no-brainer in my mind. Or at least a much more obvious move than MacOS/ARM (which would split a small ecosystem behind the only logic that "they did it before and it worked out".) Plus 'the future' is obviously iOS.

reaperducer 7y ago
And the keyboard cases actually make it worse because you delude yourself into thinking it makes it better, when it does not. When I was given my iPad I didn't want to buy a keyboard case. But sometimes I need a keyboard. I happened to have an extra Apple Wireless Keyboard, and it works fantastically. Wireless. Full-sized. And it's only slightly larger than the 9" iPad. I just throw them both in my bag.
- flomo 7y ago
  (1) Nah, it certainly doesn't work "fantastically", but might work decently enough for you if you have bought an additional ipad stand. (2) If this was some really great solution and not just your personal workaround, Apple would have been promoting it years ago. My point is the only way iPadOS can displace laptops is to be a laptop. Not this tablet-stand bullshit.
brantonb 7y ago
I love my iPad with the keyboard case. When I hook it up to an external monitor and my Kinesis keyboard, it’s even better. I’m looking forward to mouse support in iOS 13. One of my favorite apps when it comes to the keyboard is Blink. It’s an SSH/Mosh client with a limited local shell. I use it to build a Jekyll site on an EC2 instance. Blink supports multi-monitor, so I can have different shells on different screens. Multi-window in iOS 13 is going to be another game changer. This is the best device I’ve owned and I’m excited about what’s to come.

hartator 7y ago

Such a bad analysis. Switching CPU architecture has been done before in the macos ecosystem. And it has been successful.

NikkiA 7y ago
Both times were out of necessity though.
- sbuk 7y ago
  Arguably, the necessity here would be energy consumption, thermal performance and potentially speed?
  - kevingadd 7y ago
    That's not really necessity unless you can show that the current values for those 3 are insufficient and that an Axx transition will produce big gains in at least 2 of those 3 areas, is it? Even if native apps compiled and written for the Axx architecture have better energy and thermal performance, what about all the x86 apps that have to be emulated? There'll be a tax for that. It could be worse. Intel-based macs are probably wasting some power that Axx would theoretically not waste, and Axx might theoretically have better thermals, but there's not some massive demand for Apple to upend the whole ecosystem like that. Does Apple have competition threatening to steal their lunch because Macbooks' battery life isn't long enough? Not really, no?
    - sbuk 7y ago
      I did say ‘arguably‘ ;) > Even if native apps compiled and written for the Axx architecture have better energy and thermal performance, what about all the x86 apps that have to be emulated? There'll be a tax for that. Initially, probably. Think of the long game. This is something they have already done, twice. They have the experience and expertise to make this less impactful. > Even if native apps compiled and written for the Axx architecture have better energy and thermal performance, what about all the x86 apps that have to be emulated? There'll be a tax for that. Longer battery life is always preferable in portable devices, no? Alternatively, what about the reduction in the need for the materials, therefore the environmental impact, used in making batteries for laptops? Apple want to be the greenest manufacturer.

kristianp 7y ago

I agree that Apple would prefer to use the ipad pro as a way to migrate users from their intel machines. I bet there's more margin in an ipad pro than a macbook pro.

reitzensteinm 7y ago

I don't buy the permanent fork argument for one reason. AMD had the cancelled ARM version of Zen. There aren't any public plans to bring it back as far as I'm aware. But if Apple transitions past x86, it's going to provide critical mass for desktop ARM and the Zen chip will be back. AMD would be sitting on the highest performance single socket ARM chip, and Apple would just use that.

SkyMarshal 7y ago
I can't see Apple using any ARM chip other than their own. If they commit to converting OS X to ARM then they'll either produce it in-house or, less likely, buy AMD (or maybe just buy AMD's Zen tech only). One of the main reasons for Apple to move to ARM is to control more of their technology stack. It's the direction they've been moving in for a while now and this would be part of that strategy.
- reitzensteinm 7y ago
  The article claims Apple would need to keep x86 around indefinitely for the Mac Pro - I'm just saying that makes no sense. Apple would definitely prefer to only use its own chips, but if they're unable to, using ARM Zen from AMD makes a million times more sense than x86 Intel. I think you may be underestimating Apple's willingness to let the Mac Pro be an ugly duckling. This is a platform that they left stagnant for years after all.
  - SkyMarshal 7y ago
    >but if they're unable to, using ARM Zen from AMD makes a million times more sense than x86 Intel. How do you figure? Transitioning from x86 to ARM would be a major, expensive undertaking. If it's justified at all it would mainly be by Apple gaining control over that part of their stack. I doubt they would make such an effort and investment only to switch from the current third party, Intel, to a different third party, AMD. But otherwise yes they're really not likely to make the transition at all. Given how small a proportion of their overall sales Mac sales are, they're most likely to just leave it on x86 indefinitely.

vermontdevil 7y ago

Would Apple be looking at RISC-V as another option here?

vineyardmike 7y ago
Apple has already spent significant engineering effort to develop internal ARM chips, so RISCV doesn't seem on the horizon. That said, at least one apple researcher has probably looked at RISC-V at some point, given their size and budget.
Dunedan 7y ago
Extremely unlikely. The beauty about RISC-V is that it's open source and royalty free. Both arguments aren't that relevant for Apple, as they got an architectural license from ARM which gives them full access to everything and allows them to design their own chips and because the royalty charges are vanishingly small compared to the prices Apple charges for it's products. Apple has also already invested so much effort in its own ARM chips that I believe it wouldn't make much sense for them to throw that away in favor of RISC-V, just for saving a few million dollars per year in royalties.
- fluffything 7y ago
  > Extremely unlikely. The beauty about RISC-V is that it's open source and royalty free The other beauty is that you can extend the ISA with whatever proprietary instructions you want. Others develop 99% of the ISA for you, and you focus on the 1% that differentiates your product. I'm not sure if the ARM licenses allows them to extend the ISA with "Apple-only" instructions, but RISC-V does and it allows Apple for more vendor lock-in. E.g. you can't use a Hackintosh anymore without buying a CPU directly from Apple.
  - sokoloff 7y ago
    I think Apple could stop Hackintoshing on Intel (in a practical sense) if they really cared to do so. There will always be the extreme fringe who would get it to work, but it's so easy at the moment to get a fully functioning Hackintosh (including iCloud, iMessage, App Store, etc) that I have to believe Apple is both aware and doesn't care to try to stop it.

lyime 7y ago

I don’t believe Apple will transition away from x86 anytime soon but for different reasons. They would abandon the pro market if it moved to arm. Most x86 pro applications would have to be rewritten. What would be the incentive for software makers? Apple might very will be able to bring out a arm stack for consumer market but there is no indication that they can compete with x86 pro or server market.

whatshisface 7y ago
Rewritten or recompiled?
- viraptor 7y ago
  Somewhere in between. First patched, possibly significantly, then recompiled. Unless you have a lot of low level processing in ASM or intrinsics for simd. Then there will be a bit of rewriting.
eridius 7y ago
They did a migration like this once already for PPC -> Intel (twice if you count 68k -> PPC).
- armitron 7y ago
  PPC was niche compared to Intel. So they moved from a dying ecosystem to a thriving one. If they moved from AMD64 to ARM, they would be doing the opposite. AMD64 is not going anywhere on the desktop and is by far the undisputed performance king. Not to mention how many shops and pro end-users they would instantly lose. The number of developers that run macOS and depend on AMD64 virtual machines must be enormous. Given how much Microsoft is embracing Linux, it would be commercial suicide for Apple to abandon the AMD64 platform since they would be driving all these devs to their competition.
- lyime 7y ago
  That was a different time. They had to do that otherwise they were dead. PPC was not keeping up with Intel.

dehrmann 7y ago

ARM on the Macbook Pro would put a lot of software shops (I'm guessing tech and design firms are the main purchasers of Macs) using Docker in an awkward spot with their containers not running on dev machines.

eridius 7y ago
Do these shops have to use the exact same container on their dev machine as elsewhere? Can they not build an ARM flavor of their container? Same Dockerfile but with an ARM base image instead of an x86_64 base image?
- dehrmann 7y ago
  Generally no, but it's been convenient to have the architectures match up. It minimizes surprises. Different architectures also make people ask if they should switch to PCs.
pjmlp 7y ago
Those shops are deploying into Linux servers anyway, so they would be better off supporting an Linux OEM. We use our Macs for Design (Sketch, Zepplin, Adobe), Web (via Java) and native iOS/macOS development, I am yet to hear anyone caring about docker beyond conference talks.
- _ph_ 7y ago
  But developers using Macs for x86 Linux development is a common thing. Besides that they actually also might need the Mac part (Office, other software requirements), it certainly would be a hit to Apple, if those developers dropped the Macs. I am one developer using a MacBook Pro at work, but depend on the ability to run x86-Linux VMs. I could not use an ARM-Based Laptop for work.
  - pjmlp 7y ago
    Those developers would be better off supporting Linux OEMs. That is what I did with my Asus travel netbook (1215 B), which was sold with Ubuntu LTS pre-installed.

walterbell 7y ago

Apple would like to be less reliant on both Qualcomm (radio/modem) and Intel (CPU). Qualcomm is ahead on 5G and Intel was behind on 5G and 10nm. Apple needs TSMC's 5nm performance-per-watt for AR glasses and moving MacOS from x86 to Arm, and it carries keyboard debt into the post-Ive era. - Qualcomm settlement bridges the 5G modem gap - Intel modem acquihire rekindles dream of radio autonomy - Did Intel modem deal delay "x86-Arm" mobile Mac transition? - Can 16" Macbook + 2015 keyboard buy time for new designs?

jbverschoor 7y ago

> Today, I’ll contend that moving the macOs to an Axx processor is a fantasy, it’s too complicated and will never happen, at least no time soon. Mac users are wedded to x86 processors for the foreseeable future. No wonder Be Inc went belly up. Apple had switched before from architecture.

raverbashing 7y ago
Be Inc went belly up because of MS anti-competitive practices. Vendors would get a discount if they shipped only windows computers
kevingadd 7y ago
To imagine that the transition from ppc to x86 is remotely comparable to a present-day x86-to-ARM transition is utterly absurd. Basically everything has changed: Hardware architectures, software architectures, OS design, etc. The amount of software out there for x86 macs is massive and end users are going to expect all that stuff to work (even if they'll grumble and accept it when Apple tells them that only 50% of it will work). You're also having to maintain compatibility with a massive set of third party hardware used by creatives, developers and enthusiasts - are you gonna run those drivers in an emulator? In kernel mode? This would be an undertaking beyond any past one, because in the past computers were much simpler and Apple controlled a bigger part of the picture. Now they're shipping elaborate GPUs and hardware stacks that mash together chips from various vendors and there's a ton of third party hardware and software all working on top of it. If they don't keep most of that working users won't stand for it. Something like "we need to get AMD or NVIDIA to provide us a top-tier video driver for the Axx instruction set and convince them not to demand a king's ransom for it" would not have been an obstacle in the PPC days but it's unavoidable now unless they want to ship their own GPU too (which they could do, but again, compatibility)

techrich 7y ago

He is right for right now, but the long game is the axx chip in most apple products. The MacPro won’t have one, if it’s still around then. ipad pros will get a dock much like today’s dell usb type c docks. you will connect up to your screen while at your desk. do what you need to do with the keyboard and mouse. Even have a vdi app for access to some corp windows only apps. Then unplug it for meetings with note taking etc. It sounds like an interesting future.

ken 7y ago

Every analysis I've read, including this one, assumes that Apple would start at the bottom rather than the top, as they have with every other CPU transition in the history of the company. Is there something especially difficult about making a high-core-count CPU? The A-series is already crushing single-threaded performance and they're competitive with Intel desktop CPUs for some applications. Once you have a high-performance CPU with multi-core capabilities, is there any reason you can't just copy/paste cores?

_ph_ 7y ago
It isn't especially difficult, but is is expensive. The big challenge with CPU design is to make up for the costs and for that you need numbers. In the 90ies, there were plenty of high-performance CPU designs, Alpha, Sparc, Mips. They were alle killed by two mechanisms, that Intel had a lead in fab technology and that Intel had much higher numbers, consequentely could gain back much higher investments as the competitors could afford. The big question wouldn't be whether Apple could make a high-performance ARM, but if the financials play out for it. The Mac Pro numbers certainly wouldn't pay for such a CPU development. This could change of course, if they would bring back the Xserve in a modern incarnation or find some other uses for a high-performance ARM cpu.
- yoz-y 7y ago
  But Apple does not need to be a good or efficient fab because TSMC and Global Foundries already exist. One of the cited reasons for ARM transition is specifically that Intel fab sucks and their CPUs have been lagging in performance per watt for years.
  - snazz 7y ago
    Performance per watt isn’t too important on the Mac Pro and the low volumes mean that developing a purpose-built chip would be extremely cost-prohibitive.
- ken 7y ago
  > The Mac Pro numbers certainly wouldn't pay for such a CPU development. Again, though, what exactly does "development" mean here? Apple is already fabless. TSMC makes 32-core chips for AMD, so that scale is not new to them.

dmix 7y ago

It’s amazing to think the iPhone launched without copy and paste and now it’s a prominent feature on the iPadOS sales page. I’m a bit happy we’re movinf back to just letting people do stuff and let the developers figure out how to make it work.

ken 7y ago
Every feature on the macOS sales page today is something that macOS shipped without for almost 20 years (and Mac OS for almost 20 years before that). That's what sales pages are for: they show off the new features. Apple didn't withhold copy/paste out of spite. They were shipping a completely new platform, and you can't do everything in 1.0. For comparison, with the first version of the Macintosh system software, copy/paste crashed 50% of the time: https://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&story=Cut,_Paste_and_Crash.txt https://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&stor...

eecc 7y ago

Frankly I’m surprised no one hasn’t built an external core/ram expansion docking station yet. With OS support for Numa and a broker to schedule tasks on Big/Little cores all the pieces are there. My guess is the halo effect around the cloud that put these devices back into the drawers; when you can sync files across two conventional independent devices, risk aversion wins. But people might become aware and weary of routing everything through Facebook/Google so the value of cloudless mobility might tip the scale. Plus, if AR/VR ever takes off, the hardware for high bandwidth wired or not PAN will become available

GordonS 7y ago
> Frankly I’m surprised no one hasn’t built an external core/ram expansion docking station yet I imagine that the distance and all the connectivity required between the CPU and RAM sitting in an external docking station would destroy performance.
- PetahNZ 7y ago
  How would this be much different to a GPU running over the PCIE bus?
- eecc 7y ago
  Well, the point is that current interconnects are reducing this latency significantly, people are buying GPUs in external boxes today
yjftsjthsd-h 7y ago
Suddenly disconnecting a dock today is a minor annoyance; worst case, you lose some file descriptors/mountpoints, and network connections. If you plug in processors, accidentally unplugging outright drops processes, and likely panics the kernel.
- eecc 7y ago
  Likely? Depends how the kernel mediates access to the detachable CPU facility. Hot plug CPU has been around forever, as well as Apple's GCD. Access to the pluggable CPU/RAM complex doesn't have to be transparent and irrecoverable on error.

BerislavLopac 7y ago

I have realised a long ago that Apple has for a long time now been working towards steering the Macintosh way from its open, Unix-based foundation. I used to work with the old MacOS, long before OSX, and it was just the way they wanted it: a closed platform with a nice (for the time) user interface and giving Apple full control over what is being developed on it and how. Dropping this platform for NeXTSTEP-based OS X was the right choice at the time it was made, when they needed a more advanced platform, and they needed it immediately. But the side effect was that it opened the Mac as a development platform, and Apple has since been trying to close it back, without affecting the existing users too hard. The success of mobile/tablet market allowed them to build a new, closed platform, with precisely the features described above. After MacBook Air was first released I expected them to soon release an OSX-based tablet, but I have soon realised that it is not going to happen: instead of pushing Mac to the tablets, they will more and more push iOS to the Mac, until they have one uniform platform that will make it nearly impossible to develop on except if sanctioned by Apple.

jfkwingmsk 7y ago
Which we’re going to see how that sits with antitrust law pretty soon.
- scarface74 7y ago
  The same as “it sits” with console makers.....
II2II 7y ago
Anyone could develop software for the Macintosh prior to the release of OS X. There were third-party tools to do so. You could extend the system software. You could distribute your software as you pleased. Depending upon how you look at it, it was actually more open than OS X development since modern releases of OS X lock certain things down in the name of security. Both are a far cry from iOS development.
scarface74 7y ago
Apple full control over what is being developed on it and how. What “control” did Apple have on what was developed on classic MacOS? Famously, the only decent compiler during the early PPC years was made by a third party.

jillesvangurp 7y ago

Couple of points here: - Apple is about to ship a new mac os that comes with improved support for running ios/ipados applications as well as using an ipad as an extension of your screen. - The reason for the Mac Pro and the Mac Book Pro to exist is to enable professional artists, developers, and other people that need this kind of hardware to do their thing. Mostly they use tools not developed by Apple. E.g. Adobe is king for anything related to graphics. There are a bunch of third party 3D tools out there. Same for video. Same for Audio. Porting all of that to a new processor architecture will take a lot of time. It also has a severe risk of alienating developers and users during the transition. E.g. Adobe took their sweet time launching optimized versions of their tools for Intel ten years ago and meanwhile some users moved to Windows. - Mac developers targeting intel macs (i.e. all existing macs), would probably want to develop and test on the machines they are actually targeting. Building cpu/gpu intensive x86 software on an ARM architecture with an X86 emulator makes no sense. You'd want the real thing. Xcode on arm would be a hard sell (except for IOS developers). - A key money maker on IOS/IpadOS is the app store and the whole point of an ipad is that all the software comes from there. The whole point of Mac OS is that pro users get a lot of their software outside the app store. - VR/AR is slowly starting to happen and Apple has mostly ignored this on mac os and only done a little bit on IOS (AR mostly). Any hardware that Apple is going to launch here is extremely unlikely to involve Intel or AMD hardware. In fact I suspect this is the primary reason Apple has not pushed hard on this on mac OS: they are looking to disrupt this space with an Apple product that consists 100% of Apple hardware and software and are not interested in filling the gap short term by depending on third party hardware. So, a processor architecture change on mac os would be short term disruptive and risky. They have a coherent strategy for getting mac users to buy an ipad and double dip in revenue and it seems they are pushing a lot of users toward that platform. Also the pro market is comparatively small but extremely lucrative in its current form.

blinkingled 7y ago

Apple product ecosystem has fast become a solution looking for problem combined with touchy feely hokus pokus aided by synthetic exclusivity and nonsensical differentiation. Why the hell do we need the iPad to take over the PCs? Why the hell do we need ARM CPUs in Macs? Nobody is solving any real problems with those things - it's only purpose is to make Apple's margins and control even greater. And we as consumers are supposed to pay attention to the news outlets droning on about it for no benefit! I think Apple will do well going back to the basics - simplifying the product lines, selling what matters and focusing on increasing the reach of its products to price conscious buyers. I don't think the market has a big enough appetite for more BS however well marketed it may be.

rubbingalcohol 7y ago
The trash can Mac Pro and butterfly keyboards are perfect examples of solutions looking for problems. But I don't think making the iPad's operating system usable is an attempt to somehow position the devices as "PC killers." For use cases where a tablet is sufficient to produce a particular work product, a more usable OS only enhances its effectiveness. This has no bearing on the huge number of use cases where a tablet is insufficient. I agree with the author that Apple would be barking up the wrong tree trying to switch the Macs to ARM processors. Macs are already comparatively a low-volume market and segmenting that market would not do them any favors in the face of increasing competition from Microsoft and Linux implementations.
- blinkingled 7y ago
  > But I don't think making the iPad's operating system usable is an attempt to somehow position the devices as "PC killers. I agree with that one - meaningful improvements to make the iPad a better choice for the users that can get away with using only the iPad as their primary device is a good thing. There's also a significant number of those users. But in practice, deciding what those capabilities are and how best to implement those are far more complicated questions - adding a mouse pointer is maybe a perfect illustration of the conundrum - should we, how should it look, what about the click targets, what about touch first, pencil etc.

bluthru 7y ago

I really hope there is a hybrid MBP with an Apple chip running mac OS and first party apps along with an intel chip that runs on demand for third party apps that need x86.