5 ms·

mac on arm is in the works apparently and is probably significantly more power efficient than AMD

sjwright 7y ago
The T2 chip is probably what these rumors refer to. I imagine there's also ongoing engineering research to incrementally beef up the role of the T2 chip as a system controller and possibly also perform more system and background tasks in its ARM core. That said, I've no doubt Apple is looking closely at an ARM future for Mac. I'm hoping that Apple does this, but as price & efficiency play, not to phase out x86. There's no reason Mac couldn't be indefinitely dual platform. We know macOS already has strong multi-binary support, so there's no technical impediment to that. It could start with them releasing a MacBook Air with ARM as an option, ostensibly targeted towards developers and early adopters. It would need to have longer battery life and superior CPU + GPU performance at the same price point. From there they could progressively introduce ARM across their consumer range, guided by the performance numbers. And as software support broadens, they could begin progressively discontinuing x86 at the bottom of the product range. Part of me wants to say that Apple shouldn't ever discontinue x86 support entirely, but if they're ever able to make chips that soundly trash anything from Intel and AMD, I doubt anyone would be too sad if they did.
- davnicwil 7y ago
  > It could start with them releasing a MacBook Air with ARM as an option I don't see this ever happening, it'll be all or nothing. Apple just doesn't differentiate its products on technical differences, it categorises them purely on what you can use them to do, as a branding/marketing strategy. Despite developers and other people interested in the tech being a significant market for them, it's definitely not significant enough for them to change this. Having a macbook that can't do things other macbooks can, with the tradeoff of different performance characteristics.. I just can't imagine it's something Apple would ever do.
  - sjwright 7y ago
    I strongly disagree and for exactly the same reason you gave: because there wouldn't be any need to differentiate on technical differences. Once all developers have cross-compiled their apps, the only difference between an ARM and x86 MacBook would end up being the ability to run Windows natively. And yet, it's also ridiculously wrong to claim that Apple doesn't "differentiate on technical differences". While that's certainly true for their non-Mac products, Mac products have mostly stuck to the same formula used by Dell and HP. Sure, Apple do place more emphasis on whole-product benefits and less emphasis on technical minutiae, but even that's splitting hairs. For example while they don't mention Intel's precise CPU product numbers in literature, they still differentiate SKUs based on tech specs like Intel Turbo Boost speeds. And when you buy an iMac, they'll still let you pick between the Radeon Pro 570X, 575X, 580X, or BTO the "Radeon Pro Vega 48 with 8GB of HBM2 memory". I think they can handle a few products having an "Apple CPU".
    - zozbot234 7y ago
      Windows can run natively on ARM.
      - sjwright 7y ago
        You’re right, Windows can—but whatever app important enough to justify the effort of running within a virtual machine probably can’t. (And you’re assuming that Microsoft will sell you a license for Windows on ARM in a VM, or that anyone will build that virtual machine software to support it.)
    - davnicwil 7y ago
      > Once all developers have cross-compiled their apps This is what I'm referring to specifically. If this were to happen, there would be a transition period where an obscure technical difference would mean they can do certain things on one mac model, and not on another. And this won't even be like 'the entire new generation of macbooks can run this, the older ones can't' but 'this particular new model of macbook air can't run this, all the rest can, including all the other new ones' - Apple will never allow that to happen, it's completely antithetical to their product positioning strategy - simple computers that just work. I concede that in the mac(book) line they do go into detail on some technical specs, but these are pretty much sliding scale numbers, bigger is better and more powerful and more expensive. It's very clear even to casual consumers (perhaps with a little explanation) why a bigger frequency number, more storage, more memory, is better. I.e. it's the same thing, just more powerful. That's a very different thing than trying to explain to a consumer that the chip architecture is different, and why that means certain software doesn't work now, but will once the developer does this and that, etc etc. Again, Apple will simply not put themselves in that position. To be honest I kind of hope I'm wrong - I'm interested in seeing what a macbook with Apple's own chips in it would look like, and if that's their plan then for me the sooner it happens the better. I just don't see it happening in any other way than all at once, though.

The T2 chip is probably what these rumors refer to. I imagine there's also ongoing engineering research to incrementally beef up the role of the T2 chip as a system controller and possibly also perform more system and background tasks in its ARM core. That said, I've no doubt Apple is looking closely at an ARM future for Mac. I'm hoping that Apple does this, but as price & efficiency play, not to phase out x86. There's no reason Mac couldn't be indefinitely dual platform. We know macOS already has strong multi-binary support, so there's no technical impediment to that. It could start with them releasing a MacBook Air with ARM as an option, ostensibly targeted towards developers and early adopters. It would need to have longer battery life and superior CPU + GPU performance at the same price point. From there they could progressively introduce ARM across their consumer range, guided by the performance numbers. And as software support broadens, they could begin progressively discontinuing x86 at the bottom of the product range. Part of me wants to say that Apple shouldn't ever discontinue x86 support entirely, but if they're ever able to make chips that soundly trash anything from Intel and AMD, I doubt anyone would be too sad if they did.

davnicwil 7y ago
> It could start with them releasing a MacBook Air with ARM as an option I don't see this ever happening, it'll be all or nothing. Apple just doesn't differentiate its products on technical differences, it categorises them purely on what you can use them to do, as a branding/marketing strategy. Despite developers and other people interested in the tech being a significant market for them, it's definitely not significant enough for them to change this. Having a macbook that can't do things other macbooks can, with the tradeoff of different performance characteristics.. I just can't imagine it's something Apple would ever do.
- sjwright 7y ago
  I strongly disagree and for exactly the same reason you gave: because there wouldn't be any need to differentiate on technical differences. Once all developers have cross-compiled their apps, the only difference between an ARM and x86 MacBook would end up being the ability to run Windows natively. And yet, it's also ridiculously wrong to claim that Apple doesn't "differentiate on technical differences". While that's certainly true for their non-Mac products, Mac products have mostly stuck to the same formula used by Dell and HP. Sure, Apple do place more emphasis on whole-product benefits and less emphasis on technical minutiae, but even that's splitting hairs. For example while they don't mention Intel's precise CPU product numbers in literature, they still differentiate SKUs based on tech specs like Intel Turbo Boost speeds. And when you buy an iMac, they'll still let you pick between the Radeon Pro 570X, 575X, 580X, or BTO the "Radeon Pro Vega 48 with 8GB of HBM2 memory". I think they can handle a few products having an "Apple CPU".
  - zozbot234 7y ago
    Windows can run natively on ARM.
    - sjwright 7y ago
      You’re right, Windows can—but whatever app important enough to justify the effort of running within a virtual machine probably can’t. (And you’re assuming that Microsoft will sell you a license for Windows on ARM in a VM, or that anyone will build that virtual machine software to support it.)
  - davnicwil 7y ago
    > Once all developers have cross-compiled their apps This is what I'm referring to specifically. If this were to happen, there would be a transition period where an obscure technical difference would mean they can do certain things on one mac model, and not on another. And this won't even be like 'the entire new generation of macbooks can run this, the older ones can't' but 'this particular new model of macbook air can't run this, all the rest can, including all the other new ones' - Apple will never allow that to happen, it's completely antithetical to their product positioning strategy - simple computers that just work. I concede that in the mac(book) line they do go into detail on some technical specs, but these are pretty much sliding scale numbers, bigger is better and more powerful and more expensive. It's very clear even to casual consumers (perhaps with a little explanation) why a bigger frequency number, more storage, more memory, is better. I.e. it's the same thing, just more powerful. That's a very different thing than trying to explain to a consumer that the chip architecture is different, and why that means certain software doesn't work now, but will once the developer does this and that, etc etc. Again, Apple will simply not put themselves in that position. To be honest I kind of hope I'm wrong - I'm interested in seeing what a macbook with Apple's own chips in it would look like, and if that's their plan then for me the sooner it happens the better. I just don't see it happening in any other way than all at once, though.