6 ms·

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. H

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.
    - dmix 7y ago
      I don’t think anyone buying a MacBook even knows about this or is calling it a revolution. The OP is the first I’ve heard make a big deal about this and the follow up comment is basically saying that he’s overstating the relevance to some ARM migration. I wouldn’t take random Internet comments too seriously.
    - robdachshund 7y ago
      OP just doesn't know what they are talking about. Welcome to HN. You are correct, the T2 chip is just a storage/memory controller. A lot of apple fans think it's a magical coprocessor. It's only there so they can use cheaper soldered ram and ssds and prevent repairs and upgrades. Good ol apple marketing at work.
    - kalleboo 7y ago
      Oh I'm not claiming like OP that this is some revolution that proves that a Mac is basically an ARM computer already. I'm just correcting your claim that "the disk controller has moved into the disk". There is no "disk". Rather the disk controller has moved into the security controller.
  - dehrmann 7y ago
    That's consolidating some controllers. It probably has more to do having fewer parts, fewer vendors, and better repair lock-in. It's not really an architectural step towards replacing the CPU--it's a southbridge with better marketing.
    - josteink 7y ago
      > It's not really an architectural step towards replacing the CPU--it's a southbridge with better marketing. Except it locks out any OS not Windows or MacOS from using it. Southbridge didn’t have hardware mechanisms in place to intentionally lock Linux out from using the machine’s (rather expensive) internal storage.
      - sa1 7y ago
        It doesn't lock out linux from using it. They deviated from the NVMe spec, and it took time(and somebody to actually investigate) for the linux guys to figure it out: https://github.com/Dunedan/mbp-2016-linux/issues/71 https://github.com/Dunedan/mbp-2016-linux/issues/71 It's not a lockout by any means, and your next version of linux kernel will support it just fine(assuming the NVMe patches are merged).
jart 7y ago
Is the struggle for microprocessor supremacy still even relevant? I'd ask, "who's going to build the best quantum processor?" rather than, "who's going to dethrone x86?"
- saagarjha 7y ago
  Quantum computers can't do anything useful and will likely not be able to for quite a while.
- tsimionescu 7y ago
  Aren't quantum processors essentially special purpose accelerators, where most of the computation is still done on a classical computer? Shor's algorithm at least looks that way.
- gridlockd 7y ago
  > Is the struggle for microprocessor supremacy still even relevant? Absolutely. Today, it's not about performance, but about performance/watt. Simply using a web browser is a huge power drain. Even if that wasn't the case, getting rid of the "Intel dependency" and the "x86 premium" would make sense from a business standpoint.
  - jart 7y ago
    x86 is a free/open isa. The patents are expired up to i486 and x86_64 patents should expire soon. A guy from Oracle not too long ago implement i186 in Verilog as a hobby project. At least we know that if Intel ever gets too authoritarian, we can do that for i386.
- coldtea 7y ago
  >who's going to build the best quantum processor? Nobody. Besides quantum processors are not general purpose, and as thus, they're of no real consequence for the kind of computing 99% of people do...
Laforet 7y ago
I can't help but feel T2 chip is just another cynical ploy to gradually kill off third party repairs by baking software functions into proprietary hardware that only the manufacturer have access to. It may be a sound security decision, but I have doubts whether it's worth it for the end user. It also goes against a wider industrial trend of moving from ARM to RISCV and other architectures. On the other hand, do all these things matter to users and developers as long as external components are hidden behind buses and abstractions?
- tomsmeding 7y ago
  > It also goes against a wider industrial trend of moving from ARM to RISCV and other architectures. Is this really already an industry trend? It feels more like some parties experimenting with the platform, not necessarily with intentions to move to it wholesale at any point in the future. But I'm probably missing stuff, since I'm not following that space well.
  - easygenes 7y ago
    The short answer is that since RISC-V is open source, it's a bypass around all the IP restrictions that are coming from the US-China tradewar and all the Chinese silicon companies want everything to be RISC-V yesterday and it's a strategic priority.
  - Laforet 7y ago
    Western Digital has comitted to go 100% RISC-V in the near future, with Seagate and Samsung not far behind. As far as storage devices are concerned there is definitely a trend.
    - benj111 7y ago
      "with Seagate and Samsung not far behind" Reference? I can find one reference to Samsung using Risc v for an IoT thing, and nothing for seagate.
  - fluffything 7y ago
robdachshund 7y ago
The T2 chip is a drive/ram controller. They are just using it so they can solder in ram and ssds. It doesn't do any processing on terms of the OS. Yes, it is ARM based, but no, it has nothing to do with them switching to ARM, which just seems like the natural evolution of things now.

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.
  - dmix 7y ago
    I don’t think anyone buying a MacBook even knows about this or is calling it a revolution. The OP is the first I’ve heard make a big deal about this and the follow up comment is basically saying that he’s overstating the relevance to some ARM migration. I wouldn’t take random Internet comments too seriously.
  - robdachshund 7y ago
    OP just doesn't know what they are talking about. Welcome to HN. You are correct, the T2 chip is just a storage/memory controller. A lot of apple fans think it's a magical coprocessor. It's only there so they can use cheaper soldered ram and ssds and prevent repairs and upgrades. Good ol apple marketing at work.
  - kalleboo 7y ago
    Oh I'm not claiming like OP that this is some revolution that proves that a Mac is basically an ARM computer already. I'm just correcting your claim that "the disk controller has moved into the disk". There is no "disk". Rather the disk controller has moved into the security controller.
- dehrmann 7y ago
  That's consolidating some controllers. It probably has more to do having fewer parts, fewer vendors, and better repair lock-in. It's not really an architectural step towards replacing the CPU--it's a southbridge with better marketing.
  - josteink 7y ago
    > It's not really an architectural step towards replacing the CPU--it's a southbridge with better marketing. Except it locks out any OS not Windows or MacOS from using it. Southbridge didn’t have hardware mechanisms in place to intentionally lock Linux out from using the machine’s (rather expensive) internal storage.
    - sa1 7y ago
      It doesn't lock out linux from using it. They deviated from the NVMe spec, and it took time(and somebody to actually investigate) for the linux guys to figure it out: https://github.com/Dunedan/mbp-2016-linux/issues/71 https://github.com/Dunedan/mbp-2016-linux/issues/71 It's not a lockout by any means, and your next version of linux kernel will support it just fine(assuming the NVMe patches are merged).

jart 7y ago

Is the struggle for microprocessor supremacy still even relevant? I'd ask, "who's going to build the best quantum processor?" rather than, "who's going to dethrone x86?"

saagarjha 7y ago
Quantum computers can't do anything useful and will likely not be able to for quite a while.
tsimionescu 7y ago
Aren't quantum processors essentially special purpose accelerators, where most of the computation is still done on a classical computer? Shor's algorithm at least looks that way.
gridlockd 7y ago
> Is the struggle for microprocessor supremacy still even relevant? Absolutely. Today, it's not about performance, but about performance/watt. Simply using a web browser is a huge power drain. Even if that wasn't the case, getting rid of the "Intel dependency" and the "x86 premium" would make sense from a business standpoint.
- jart 7y ago
  x86 is a free/open isa. The patents are expired up to i486 and x86_64 patents should expire soon. A guy from Oracle not too long ago implement i186 in Verilog as a hobby project. At least we know that if Intel ever gets too authoritarian, we can do that for i386.
coldtea 7y ago
>who's going to build the best quantum processor? Nobody. Besides quantum processors are not general purpose, and as thus, they're of no real consequence for the kind of computing 99% of people do...

Laforet 7y ago

I can't help but feel T2 chip is just another cynical ploy to gradually kill off third party repairs by baking software functions into proprietary hardware that only the manufacturer have access to. It may be a sound security decision, but I have doubts whether it's worth it for the end user. It also goes against a wider industrial trend of moving from ARM to RISCV and other architectures. On the other hand, do all these things matter to users and developers as long as external components are hidden behind buses and abstractions?

tomsmeding 7y ago
> It also goes against a wider industrial trend of moving from ARM to RISCV and other architectures. Is this really already an industry trend? It feels more like some parties experimenting with the platform, not necessarily with intentions to move to it wholesale at any point in the future. But I'm probably missing stuff, since I'm not following that space well.
- easygenes 7y ago
  The short answer is that since RISC-V is open source, it's a bypass around all the IP restrictions that are coming from the US-China tradewar and all the Chinese silicon companies want everything to be RISC-V yesterday and it's a strategic priority.
- Laforet 7y ago
  Western Digital has comitted to go 100% RISC-V in the near future, with Seagate and Samsung not far behind. As far as storage devices are concerned there is definitely a trend.
  - benj111 7y ago
    "with Seagate and Samsung not far behind" Reference? I can find one reference to Samsung using Risc v for an IoT thing, and nothing for seagate.
- fluffything 7y ago

robdachshund 7y ago

The T2 chip is a drive/ram controller. They are just using it so they can solder in ram and ssds. It doesn't do any processing on terms of the OS. Yes, it is ARM based, but no, it has nothing to do with them switching to ARM, which just seems like the natural evolution of things now.