5 ms·

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

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.
- sjwright 7y ago
  We already have the evidence of how well it can work with the Intel transition. If anything, adding ARM to the Mac platform would be dramatically easier than the PPC-Intel transition because the ground work is already done: — Unlike in 2006, a greater proportion of current Mac apps are developed with architecture independence, whether intentionally or not. — Unlike in 2006, nearly all Mac developers are already using Apple's Xcode as their IDE. — Unlike in 2006, many Mac app developers will already be familiar with the ARM CPUs, because they'll have already worked with them on the iPhone and iPad. — Unlike in 2006, Apple has an additional motivating force called the Mac App Store. Apple would almost certainly require all new/updated apps in their store to be cross-compiled. So no, you're wrong. We've seen this before. We know how quickly it played out in 2006, despite that being objectively more difficult. This would be easy. All it would take is a 6 month transition period where ARM Macs are only marketed towards developers (and informed early adopters) combined with an x86 binary emulation layer to cater for straggling vertical/corporate apps.
  - davnicwil 7y ago
    Yeah, those are some good points. You've brought me around to thinking this is more likely now! I'm still just leaning towards them introducing these chips as an all in one product category, though - perhaps under a different brand of macbook model that is very clearly distinct from all the rest (looks different, etc) and a software strategy to match like a suite of ARM compatible software out of the gate that make it a useful standalone device whilst the ecosystem catches up. But yeah you're right, the transition looks like it'll be smoother than I'd assumed and it maybe wouldn't be a blocking obstacle from their point of view. Let's see!
    - sjwright 7y ago
      If there's going to be a new product category, I imagine it would be an iPad Pro that runs iPadOS but can also run unmodified ARM-compiled Mac apps when attached to a keyboard and trackpad. (And the "files" app would look more like Finder.)

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.

sjwright 7y ago
We already have the evidence of how well it can work with the Intel transition. If anything, adding ARM to the Mac platform would be dramatically easier than the PPC-Intel transition because the ground work is already done: — Unlike in 2006, a greater proportion of current Mac apps are developed with architecture independence, whether intentionally or not. — Unlike in 2006, nearly all Mac developers are already using Apple's Xcode as their IDE. — Unlike in 2006, many Mac app developers will already be familiar with the ARM CPUs, because they'll have already worked with them on the iPhone and iPad. — Unlike in 2006, Apple has an additional motivating force called the Mac App Store. Apple would almost certainly require all new/updated apps in their store to be cross-compiled. So no, you're wrong. We've seen this before. We know how quickly it played out in 2006, despite that being objectively more difficult. This would be easy. All it would take is a 6 month transition period where ARM Macs are only marketed towards developers (and informed early adopters) combined with an x86 binary emulation layer to cater for straggling vertical/corporate apps.
- davnicwil 7y ago
  Yeah, those are some good points. You've brought me around to thinking this is more likely now! I'm still just leaning towards them introducing these chips as an all in one product category, though - perhaps under a different brand of macbook model that is very clearly distinct from all the rest (looks different, etc) and a software strategy to match like a suite of ARM compatible software out of the gate that make it a useful standalone device whilst the ecosystem catches up. But yeah you're right, the transition looks like it'll be smoother than I'd assumed and it maybe wouldn't be a blocking obstacle from their point of view. Let's see!
  - sjwright 7y ago
    If there's going to be a new product category, I imagine it would be an iPad Pro that runs iPadOS but can also run unmodified ARM-compiled Mac apps when attached to a keyboard and trackpad. (And the "files" app would look more like Finder.)