14 ms·
Apple to debut multiple ARM MacBook, desktop models in 2021
- strategarius 7y agoI'm curious what Parallels going to do. Running Windows and Linux applications with almost native integration into OSX ecosystem worth a lot, especially with all benefits of hardware virtualization. In theory PC could be virtualized on ARM, however software virtualization only. Going to watch the process. In general, Windows and Linux support ARM as well, not sure if hardware virtualization for ARM exist though
- saagarjha 7y agoApple doesn’t have chips that support it, yet.
- pmontra 7y agoMaybe backend developers for Intel Linux servers will fire up a VM on AWS/Azure/Google and work there. There will be some cross platform compatibility issues. Interpreted languages hide the CPU (think Python, Ruby, Node) but their extensions in C could need some extra work that not all of them require now. On the other side there will be the rise of the ARM servers. Apple is notoriously not interested in running server farms for their customers but I expect that the big cloud providers will start offering ARM servers. It could be the x86 developers to have to fire up an ARM VM on the cloud to be able to work in ARM Macs heavy teams.
- scarface74 7y agoPackages with native dependencies already require a recompile to run between Windows and Linux. Right now, I write Python scripts on a Windows laptop, push the changes and the build server (well actually a Linux Docker container using AWS CodeBuild) builds and deploys the package to Linux servers. Apple already has an x86 build chain that cross compiled to ARM.
- mappu 7y ago> not sure if hardware virtualization for ARM exist though Virtualization extensions have been available since the Cortex A15 or thereabouts. Linux supports normal KVM on both ARM32 and ARM64 although there are mutterings about dropping support for ARM32. In practice, the hypervisor is usually already grabbed by the platform (e.g. on Android/Snapdragon it's taken by the TrustZone driver and can't be used yourself, even if you rebuild the kernel with CONFIG_KVM).
- strategarius 7y agoInteresting info, thanks. I also missed the point that Apple is going to design new CPU, they are definitely able to add any hardware virtualization instructions
- jbverschoor 7y agoWhy wouldn’t they be able to provide on-chip x86 emulation, exposed via hypervisor Framework? They can use that for backward compatibility for non-recompiled apps while supporting parallels/VMware Also, the move to Catalina helps to check how fast app developers and users switch to new hardware.
- raverbashing 7y agoStill to be confirmed, I don't usually take "analyst predictions" too seriously but I found this interesting: "Apple will no longer be held to the whims of Intel" Apple switched to Intel because IBM couldn't ship a good enough G5 for notebooks and for scale issues. Given that Intel is not on track with 7nm and rumours of their CEO being seen in Taiwan the other day it seems history is repeating itself.
- avelis 7y agoI remember rewatching the switch to Intel being for performance per watt. Intel was way better at that metric than G4 or even trying to get a G5 into a notebook. Maybe ARM can finally achieve the suitable performance per watt they are looking for.
- caycep 7y agoIt goes w/ the core Jobs/Cook strategy of owning/controlling all their core tech. (notwithstanding their core "supply chain tech" as per Ben Thompson's point on Stratechery). The other thought...is it yet another loss of American technical expertise that they cannot chip fab w/ the best of them anymore?
- birdyrooster 7y agoI agree completely. It’s also the case that ARM core performance is now close to parity with x86. With a little more time, the arm performance curve will poke out above x86 and it will be the perfect time to adopt arm for desktop.
- DeathArrow 7y agoProof?
- unlinked_dll 7y agoI mean if it's just about performance, why switch architectures instead of using AMD chips?
- 7y ago
- jshaqaw 7y agoThe question is as users should we care? If this is cheaper for Apple will they actually lower product prices or just enhance their own margins. Will this result in any superior performance on a cost-adjusted basis?
- sudosysgen 7y agoThis is Apple. Unless there is a major downside, they will keep the same prices or increase it.
- electriclove 7y agoApple's gains in chip performance are incredible and I would prefer to have an alternative to Intel. If I can get better performance and they keep the price the same, I care.
- caycep 7y agofor ARM, power per watt. It's always been the advantage. Controlling the stack w/ better vertical integration as well will probably yield more coherent product design. You can tell re how "put-together" a product an iPad or iPhone is vs. a Mac these days. While maybe not yielding direct customer, user-facing benefits, the under-the-hood benefits would definitely improve customer experience.
- evo_9 7y agoUsers that run VM's because they need to run OSX and Win10, etc most definitely care.
- timrichard 7y agoAlso, in the pro audio sector it's common for people to spend quite a bit more than the cost of the Mac on Intel-specific DAW plugins.
- rewgs 7y agoCitation/example?
- outside1234 7y agoIs it really going to be a MacBook - or a laptop form for the iPad Pro?
- zootam 7y agoThis is nothing new, just the latest rehashing of the same rumor that's been recirculating for months.
- davidgerard 7y agoyeah, I was looking for something more than a single analyst's note here.
- GrumpiNerd 7y agoUntil they offer pro-level repair service they shouldn't be considered a "pro" machine. That means next-day onsite repairs. Not 3-5 days at a distant location, leaving the user without their computer.
- jlei523 6y agoYou're thinking enterprise.
- nodesocket 7y agoIs the switch to ARM going to be for cost savings, or are the chips actually faster than current Intel?
- phoobahr 7y agohttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21033371 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21033371
- sudosysgen 7y agoThat's Geekbench. The differences in Geekbench for ARM devices and Geekbench for x86 are laughable. Why not compare them in a real life workload like a render on Blender or a kernel compile?
- mattkevan 7y agoI’d love to read your results rendering something in Blender on the latest A13 chip, if that’s the best way to make a comparison.
- sudosysgen 7y agoI'd love to make such a benchmark, but I won't because I don't have enough money to justify buying a Mac. If you send me one I'll port the rendering engine over and do the benchmark, though.
- uglycoyote 7y agoHow is running the same code in two different machines and reporting the results objectively "laughable"?
- sudosysgen 7y agoBecause the way the code is compiled or hand optimized even, which kind of extensions are used for ARM vs x86 (SSE, AVX and so on). Many of the worloads used in Geekbench are straight up directly accelerated, which is fine if the only thing that's requiring CPU power on your machine is Javascript, but not so otherwise. Other synthetic benchmarks of memory bandwidth and so on use all acceleration features of the plafortm on ARM but don't support AVX2 or AVX512, although some other workloads in the benchmark do. And of course you would have to choose exactly which instruction is used in which scenario in which processor(Intel vs Zen 1 vs Zen 2) in order to have the same kind of optimization as for ARM processors. Then comes the issue that vector operations are "hand-tuned", which is not realistic and depending on the skill of the programmer and their affinity with a given uArch can yield vastly different results. Which is why they should either use the fastest library for each processor, or leave all the optimization to the compiler. The only way to do a proper comparison between two uArch is with an open source benchmark compiled specifically for the processor.
- Nursie 7y agoStill hoping for a 13/14 inch intel macbook refresh with the revamped keyboard before too long. Or I was, now that I work from home all the time my need for a laptop is much reduced.
- shmerl 7y agoDo Apple even care about their PC business? They basically let it rot.
- thought_alarm 7y agoAlways a year away. I remain deeply sceptical that Apple will move the Mac to ARM, and given their bungling of the MacBook lineup over the last 5 years I have doubts they understand what their users need from a laptop. I don't think they could pull it off without a great deal of pain for their users and developers. I don't think their OS engineers need the burden.
- ttul 7y agoThey’ll do it on a select model or two. By passing on some of the cost savings to purchasers, they will drag the market along with them as they gradually replace Intel. I would guess that they target the MacBook Air first, because there are likely large power-performance benefits in that form factor. They will build multiple processor targeting into the default build process in Xcode and will invest a great deal of effort and time into ensuring that app developers are well supported with the targeting of ARM. They did this before with the move to Intel from PPC. And back then, Apple was a great deal smaller.
- jmnicolas 7y ago> By passing on some of the cost savings to purchasers We're talking about Apple here. I expect the new machines to have less perf but be as expensive as before.
- clairity 7y agoyes, and in addition, the ipad pro is being developed into a viable low- to mid-tier option that's even more mobile (for video, AR/VR, and whatnot). a perusal of geekbench shows that ARM is performance/efficiency competitive already. but the transition will likely be more gradual (for instance, replacement times for computers are longer now), so x86 macs should stay around for a long while i think.
- ghaff 7y agoOr the (currently discontinued) MacBook. The evidence (and logic) suggests that Apple is on a path to reconverge their tablet and at least a portion of their laptop line. Which would be interesting to me if the merged device didn't have too many compromises given that I typically travel with an iPad and some sort of laptop (whether MacBook Pro or Chromebook).
- izacus 7y agoI wonder if they'll use that as an excuse for complete lockdown of macOS and only allow AppStore reviewed software.
- ttul 7y agoI doubt that Apple will completely lock down MacOS. However, for corporate machines, the presence of Apple-controlled hardware will enable more comprehensive control of the endpoint, which is arguably good for security.
- p_l 7y agoApple story on corporate support is infamously bad, and they don't appear interested in supporting buyer ownership of machines, unlike Microsoft (which requires it from the high end certifications).
- speedgoose 7y agoI think it's likely. They may provide sandboxes for development, some kind of WSL (Windows Subsystem for Linux) or Docker on Mac, and a "Classic" emulator for apps that haven't been recompiled like they did for the transition between Mac os 9 and Mac os X, and from PowerPC to x86. Meanwhile they will continue to limit web apps.
- wyre 7y agoProbably. That's what happened with the surface RT tablet a few years ago.
- wool_gather 7y agoThey can't do this unless they are okay with never selling machines again to anyone who needs to write code. There's no feasible way for all programming tools to be distributed through MAS. IPython isn't going to suddenly go through the marathon of crap you need to get into the store. If absolutely nothing else, native developers: you can't have more than one version of a MAS app installed. Nearly every iOS developer I know has at least two versions of Xcode at any given time.
- _ph_ 7y agoI am torn, whenever I hear the rumors about the ARM Macs. On the one side, I am terribly excited from a technology perspective. I grew up with homecomputers in the 80ies, and in the 90ies, all Unix-workstations had several different, non-x86 architectures. So any disruption of the x86-monoculture is interesting. Also, looking at the performance of the iPhone and iPad, I think Apple has the potential to create some great hardware. It would also give them more flexibility to roll out new features. On the other side, such a transition always is painfull. A lot of software needs to be rebuilt, and even more legacy software gets killed, as it is not ported to the new platform. Though Catalina already did a lot of that, and that might not be a coincidence, if you think about it. Catalina might be intentionally restrictive to ease the transition to another architecture. Also, a lot of Mac users are running VMs on their machines. Running Windows and Linux VMs on your Mac was one big benefit of the switch to Intel. I myself use a Linux VM for my professional work on a MB Pro. And that VM needs to be able to run x86 software. So it remains to be seen, how Apple deals with the MB Pro (and of course the Mac Pro).
- ianai 7y agoThey could make an x86 daughterboard for the Mac Pro. Plenty of space for that and it’s been done decades ago. Or a third party could. I wonder whether they’ve got any special killer apps in mind for the desktop and MacBook ARM machines. They could theoretically customize them greatly since they’re designing the architecture. Also wonder whether they view keeping the unix developer pipeline.
- jbverschoor 7y agoBattery life
- philwelch 7y agoiOS development and, potentially, better support for Catalyst are the obvious pluses I haven’t seen mentioned yet.
- ianai 7y ago
- rubyn00bie 7y agoYep, the real give away was the A12Z. It isn't shit all faster than the A12X with the exception of the added GPU core. The A12X was so fast when it came out, reviewers were like "holy shit, this is nearly as fast or faster as comparable x86 laptop," and that was what... two years ago? Apple's ARM processors are likely _so fucking fast_ that they'd absolutely be showing their hand if they put one in a tablet right now. Reviewers would probably be like "uhh this is faster than a 13" macbook pro and it's a fucking tablet?!" Not to mention, that'd be the nail in the coffin for a good (for Apple) relationship with Intel until they're totally ready to transition. My guess is Apple is probably just not "quite" there yet for it's highest-end products or we'd see them this year. It's pretty lucky for them their custom silicon to-date has been so far ahead of everyone else or (appearing to be) sitting on their asses for a year or so might hurt. TSMC is already capable of taking a shit on Intel (Ryzen 3000) and Apple is obviously capable of making very fast custom CPUs. It's a pretty dangerous combo if you're Intel right now and already getting hammered by AMD. For me, the real question, and pipe dream, will Apple partner with AMD during the transition and perhaps make some some hybrid AMD x86/Apple ARM machines since they're both being built by TSMC?
- _ph_ 7y agoFor me, the real question, and pipe dream, will Apple partner with AMD during the transition and perhaps make some some hybrid AMD x86/Apple ARM machines since they're both being built by TSMC? There is an interesting thought. Apple could embed one AMD-chiplet with up to 8 cores into their designs, where Apple provides the ARM-CPUs as well as the io-hardware the chiplets require. This would retain the ability to run x86-code, while the system would use the ARM-hardware for most task.
- Traster 7y agoTo be honest, I am super unexcited by this. What I want to see from Apple is a move back to high software quality, high hardware quality and real vision for their products. At the moment their convergence between iPad and Macbook has essentially been to add sub-par versions of macbook features to the iPad and to make the macbook a second class citizen in terms of quality. My big worry is that actually this is just acting as cover for deep underlying issues in a lack of real vision for how the iPad can become a real replacement for laptops and no vision at all for the desktop line. How crazy is it that Apple is pumping out products that re-implement Microsoft features from 5 years ago (after spending 5 years mocking Microsoft).
- seanmcdirmid 7y agoI owned a surface and I own an iPad Pro now. They aren’t even comparable in usability, Apple is great at refining features and making them work even if Microsoft is better at getting them out earlier. It’s like comparing the iPhone to WinCE.
- jlei523 6y agoApple spent the last 4 years backtracking on features they introduced in 2016: - Keyboard with more travel - ESC key Now people are calling the 16" the greatest laptop ever. It's like you've been abused for 4 years, then the abuser does something nice, and you think he/she is the nicest person in the world. Macbook Pros are still bad: - Useless touchbar that makes basic functions harder - Resting your palm over an oversized touchpad - Dongle-hell - No battery life improvement in 8 years - Overpriced due to focus on thinness and useless touch bar They should have taken the 2015 Macbook Pro and gave it a 16" screen, touch ID, newer ports, newer CPUs/GPUs and it would have been 10x better than the overpriced junk we have today.
- wyre 7y agoWhat does this mean for software companies whose consumer base is largely on OSX? Will Adobe, Sony, Avid, etc have to port their library of software over to Apple's new ARM architecture? Will this allow for greater freedom with ARM devices not running new OSX? It seems like Apple lately has very much internalized 'if you build it, they will come' even though it seems like it is heavily alienating their professional user base.
- flqn 7y agoI'm wondering if they'll have some solution similar to Rosetta
- scarface74 7y agoYou act as if this is the first time that Apple has done a transition or the first time that the aforementioned companies have made the transition. Each of them have made the transition from 68K -> PPC -> OS X -> x86.
- wyre 7y agoI only know about the transition to x86 and from what I remember the benefit was the same architecture as Windows. Since them OSX has gained a lot of market share. Moving to ARM is definitely a step backwards in that regard. I don't know anything about the previous transitions. I don't think transitioning to ARM is a bad choice given the benefits, but a lot of serious (and casual) users are going to be very unhappy their programs aren't going to work after dropping $1k+ on a new computer.
- scarface74 7y agoThe Mac was already on an upward trajectory before the x86 transition. OS X hasn’t really gained that much marketshare. Besides the “beleaguered years”, Macs have historically trended at around 10% market share. They actually had more marketshare in the early 90s before Windows 95. Apple has done this three times if you include the Apple //e transition. Each time they brought customer’s along. The first transition from 68K to PPC, almost all of their revenue came from Macs. The second time about half (the other half was iPods). Now it’s less than 10%. It’s much less risky this time.
- fit2rule 7y agoI'd be completely fine with a switch to ARM, as long as it was handled in the same way that the switch to x86 was done - with a period of fat binaries targeting both architectures, and then a gradual phase-out of the older architecture (x86). I'm pretty sure Apple have the ability to put 32-core ARM systems into the MacBook, and push the power/processing ratio into the stratosphere. The only reason I'm not using ARM right now, personally, is because such a thing doesn't really exist .. but I look at my old Touchbook up on the shelf and wonder what could have been...
- specialist 7y agoShouldn't the first models to use ARM be desktop? Allow the early adopters to kick the tires. So that devs can make sure their wares work on ARM before the mass market models switch?
- Waterluvian 7y agoThe only reason I could come to care about architecture, as a consumer, is if it provides a freakishly long battery life.
- PopePompus 7y agoDoes anyone have a rough figure for what fraction of the power load on a macbook is going to the CPU? In other words, what's the limit in battery life for a laptop whose CPU consumes no power at all, but still has to power the display, refresh RAM, etc?
- Causality1 7y agoOther than Linux distros, almost every home OS on ARM is a locked-down anti-consumer mess. Android, Windows RT, iOS, Windows X, Chrome OS. I'm hoping MacOS doesn't follow them down that road of locked bootloaders and anti-root restrictions.
- dhhwrongagain 7y agoGet ready to not have root access on your laptop. The writing is on the wall: * signed software restrictions * no kernel extensions * SIP Dropping x86 compatibility will be the last nail in the coffin. Buy the x86 platform if you value your freedom, buy arm if you want a larger form factor smartphone
- rgovostes 7y agoThere's no evidence for this. They could remove root access now on x86 if they wanted to. They didn't have to spend engineering hours making it possible to disable SIP when they turned it on. Most software signature restrictions that have been added to macOS to date are easily disabled, and besides that have nothing to do with x86 vs ARM.
- DeathArrow 7y agoApple would love more lock in and transforming Macs into giant iPhones with app store only apps. However, breaking compatibility with Windows and Linux would be a terrible idea. People would flee to other platforms leaving Mac for those who are already locked in, like iOS developers. People care most about running their software to do their work, than what os they use.