4 ms·

Pretty weak article. Tries to argue the Windows transition failed because of the lack of a walled garden app store. But Windows on ARM did have a (to all inten

Pretty weak article. Tries to argue the Windows transition failed because of the lack of a walled garden app store. But Windows on ARM did have a (to all intents and purposes) mandatory app store. Indeed, as the Mac App Store has broadly failed it had more of one. Apple is going to have the same issues with third party software transitions. The reality is that consumers don't seem to really like the idea of a "proper" computer that can't run everything.

adrianmsmith 7y ago
Right, and I'm really not sure what this paragraph from the article means, or if it actually has any meaning at all. > With iPadOS now offering macOS-like features, as well as keyboard and trackpad support, it’s arguably not too much of a challenge for Apple to rework macOS to run on RISC and ARM.
- braythwayt 7y ago
  I can answer that. Apple already has macOS running on ARM, and has had for years. This gives them two things: 1. Leverage on pricing with Intel; 2. The ability to ship ARM macs whenever they are ready. So the next thing is, "what's the definition of 'ready'?" Opinions about that vary. I side wth tthe popular speculation that the 'problem' with macOS on ARM is not macOS, but all the legacy apps that need to be recompiled or run in some kind of emulation or need some other magic solution to "just work." It's easy to ask every developer to recompile, but people have lots of shareware apps, unsupported old apps, enterprise apps, and apps from developers who aren't making enough money to justify putting a lot of work into supporting a new chip. So for now, we have this weird situation where phones and tablets have enormous amounts of computing power but require less power and thus provide longer battery life for a given mass... Mostly to support computational photography. p.s. Completely spitballing here, but I wonder if their hesitation to ship with an emulator—as they did when they made the PowerPC -> Intel switch—is because on a mobile device, emulation might be a heat source and power hog. With desktops, they didn't have the same concern about power draw or heat.
sheeshkebab 7y ago
> The reality is that consumers don't seem to really like the idea of a "proper" computer that can't run everything. I think this will be the real deal breaker with these arm pcs... personally, I have enough of these arm phones/tablets/pi devices to skip paying $2k+ for a laptop with these processors inside that would have problems running anything but basic browser on them.
braythwayt 7y ago
> The reality is that consumers don't seem to really like the idea of a "proper" computer that can't run everything. Only when you call it a computer. The other reality (I’m saying this for style, not to disagree with your core point) is that if you call it an iPad, it becomes one of the biggest hits in computer product history, a product that can only be judged as “meh” if you’re comparing it to iPhone.
bluescrn 7y ago
The walled garden nonsense thankfully helped to destroy WinRT. If they'd let developers recompile their desktop apps for ARM and run them on RT tablets, maybe it would have taken off, especially as mobile GPUs and ARM CPUs got faster. But as it was, they had an ARM port of desktop Windows that people weren't allowed to fully use, and they just pushed the not-very-mature 'Metro' stuff. The walled garden push may destroy MacOS too, if they go 'total lockdown' on their ARM release, and only allow store apps (so no Steam, no Bittorrent, no VLC, no cryptocurrency software, even more developer pain). Although I guess they did the 'killing Steam' thing already with the removal of 32-bit support wiping out ~50% of the Mac Steam library. There's still as significant audience that wants a serious OS and serious software, not dumbed-down touch-centric 'Appified' rubbish. I'm very interested to see how functional (or completely-dumbed-down) the rumoured iPad version of XCode will be. It could prove that 'serious work' may be possible on iOS in the future, or just another data point to confirm that we still need a clear separation of 'mobile OS' (primarily for communication and content consumption) and 'serious OS' (for everything else, serious work, creativity, development, gaming)

adrianmsmith 7y ago

Right, and I'm really not sure what this paragraph from the article means, or if it actually has any meaning at all. > With iPadOS now offering macOS-like features, as well as keyboard and trackpad support, it’s arguably not too much of a challenge for Apple to rework macOS to run on RISC and ARM.

braythwayt 7y ago
I can answer that. Apple already has macOS running on ARM, and has had for years. This gives them two things: 1. Leverage on pricing with Intel; 2. The ability to ship ARM macs whenever they are ready. So the next thing is, "what's the definition of 'ready'?" Opinions about that vary. I side wth tthe popular speculation that the 'problem' with macOS on ARM is not macOS, but all the legacy apps that need to be recompiled or run in some kind of emulation or need some other magic solution to "just work." It's easy to ask every developer to recompile, but people have lots of shareware apps, unsupported old apps, enterprise apps, and apps from developers who aren't making enough money to justify putting a lot of work into supporting a new chip. So for now, we have this weird situation where phones and tablets have enormous amounts of computing power but require less power and thus provide longer battery life for a given mass... Mostly to support computational photography. p.s. Completely spitballing here, but I wonder if their hesitation to ship with an emulator—as they did when they made the PowerPC -> Intel switch—is because on a mobile device, emulation might be a heat source and power hog. With desktops, they didn't have the same concern about power draw or heat.

sheeshkebab 7y ago

> The reality is that consumers don't seem to really like the idea of a "proper" computer that can't run everything. I think this will be the real deal breaker with these arm pcs... personally, I have enough of these arm phones/tablets/pi devices to skip paying $2k+ for a laptop with these processors inside that would have problems running anything but basic browser on them.

braythwayt 7y ago

> The reality is that consumers don't seem to really like the idea of a "proper" computer that can't run everything. Only when you call it a computer. The other reality (I’m saying this for style, not to disagree with your core point) is that if you call it an iPad, it becomes one of the biggest hits in computer product history, a product that can only be judged as “meh” if you’re comparing it to iPhone.

bluescrn 7y ago

The walled garden nonsense thankfully helped to destroy WinRT. If they'd let developers recompile their desktop apps for ARM and run them on RT tablets, maybe it would have taken off, especially as mobile GPUs and ARM CPUs got faster. But as it was, they had an ARM port of desktop Windows that people weren't allowed to fully use, and they just pushed the not-very-mature 'Metro' stuff. The walled garden push may destroy MacOS too, if they go 'total lockdown' on their ARM release, and only allow store apps (so no Steam, no Bittorrent, no VLC, no cryptocurrency software, even more developer pain). Although I guess they did the 'killing Steam' thing already with the removal of 32-bit support wiping out ~50% of the Mac Steam library. There's still as significant audience that wants a serious OS and serious software, not dumbed-down touch-centric 'Appified' rubbish. I'm very interested to see how functional (or completely-dumbed-down) the rumoured iPad version of XCode will be. It could prove that 'serious work' may be possible on iOS in the future, or just another data point to confirm that we still need a clear separation of 'mobile OS' (primarily for communication and content consumption) and 'serious OS' (for everything else, serious work, creativity, development, gaming)