3 ms·

No wonder apple is jumping ship...

by akmarinov 6y ago

bredren 6y ago
Presumably Apple began working on and set the ship date without any regard to this particular development.
- thoughtsimple 6y ago
  It was about the previous problems. This is just more of the same.
  - dathinab 6y ago
    They would have switched anyway. Apple is all about controlling all parts of their phone and software. Now they have a well working ARM chip they have all the control over which is good enough for at least the non developer models of their laptops so it was just a question of time until they switch. I mean why _long term_ maintain two OS'ses and two CPU archs when you can just focus one one. (And yes I'm convinced Apple will turn macOS into iOS+some desktop features in the long run).
    - bch 6y ago
      Is there a legit case for doing it as an exercise for the experience (shaking out bugs, making discoveries by having 2 discrete development platforms), or as a strategic card, so they “have options”? I don’t know how the costs scale - whether it’s <2, ~2, or >2, and at what cost any (potential) benefits are simply cost prohibitive. Anybody have insight into this business, esp with something approaching a major player like Apple?
      - ghettoimp 6y ago
        There's a pretty in-depth video analyzing the motivations and perceived strategic benefits here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgEKDGNjqsk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgEKDGNjqsk I'm not sure he's entirely right, but I found it pretty compelling, overall.
pier25 6y ago
Apple would be switching to ARM regardless of what the x86 industry is doing.
- andoriyu 6y ago
  Yeah, they switched to Intel and went "Hey, you can run windows on it in VM or in bootcamp, maybe even play some games!". Then iPhone came along and propped the sales of macs. Now there are people tightly locked into Apple ecosystem that doesn't exist anywhere else. Saying it as someone who left that eco-system not that long ago and boy do I miss it. Now is a good time to switch to their silicon.
- mindfulhack 6y ago
  What supports that proposition? Plenty supports the opposite, such as Intel causing massive problems for several years e.g. to the MacBook Pro line, with overheating and thermal issues. They've been failing to innovate at the speed Apple would otherwise be able to, for a long time now.
  - posix_me_less 6y ago
    > "Intel causing massive problems for several years e.g. to the MacBook Pro line, with overheating and thermal issues." Do you not realize how ridiculous this statement is? Apple knows what CPU models are going into their laptops, they could properly design hardware and software to prevent overheating and degradation.
    - rowanG077 6y ago
      They could. But that means the macbook pro would perform worse on all the superficial benchmarks.
  - pier25 6y ago
    There are plenty of arguments, but E2E control is probably the strongest one. It's not only about CPUs. Remember Nvidiagate or Radeongate? If Apple takes full control of the hardware like they did with iPhone/iPad/Watch they will (most likely) end up making better products. But also: - Single architecture on all their products - More perf per watt
Aperocky 6y ago
That ship has sailed in early 2010s. Once Apple started making their own silicon there's no going back. There's no good reason that so much of the world is using an architecture that has consistently shown less efficiency, especially since the rise of distributed computing. It is bound to happen.
melling 6y ago
i wonder about others. Someone posted a video discussing RISC-V, which i just finished. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23934078 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23934078 I haven’t heard much about it but the video makes the point that Chinese firms will be adopting it. An open source cpu, with no licensing fees, is bound to catch on.
shmerl 6y ago
Whatever Apple is switching to won't compare to x86_64 anyway, especially AMD.

No wonder apple is jumping ship...

bredren 6y ago

Presumably Apple began working on and set the ship date without any regard to this particular development.

thoughtsimple 6y ago
It was about the previous problems. This is just more of the same.
- dathinab 6y ago
  They would have switched anyway. Apple is all about controlling all parts of their phone and software. Now they have a well working ARM chip they have all the control over which is good enough for at least the non developer models of their laptops so it was just a question of time until they switch. I mean why _long term_ maintain two OS'ses and two CPU archs when you can just focus one one. (And yes I'm convinced Apple will turn macOS into iOS+some desktop features in the long run).
  - bch 6y ago
    Is there a legit case for doing it as an exercise for the experience (shaking out bugs, making discoveries by having 2 discrete development platforms), or as a strategic card, so they “have options”? I don’t know how the costs scale - whether it’s <2, ~2, or >2, and at what cost any (potential) benefits are simply cost prohibitive. Anybody have insight into this business, esp with something approaching a major player like Apple?
    - ghettoimp 6y ago
      There's a pretty in-depth video analyzing the motivations and perceived strategic benefits here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgEKDGNjqsk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgEKDGNjqsk I'm not sure he's entirely right, but I found it pretty compelling, overall.

pier25 6y ago

Apple would be switching to ARM regardless of what the x86 industry is doing.

andoriyu 6y ago
Yeah, they switched to Intel and went "Hey, you can run windows on it in VM or in bootcamp, maybe even play some games!". Then iPhone came along and propped the sales of macs. Now there are people tightly locked into Apple ecosystem that doesn't exist anywhere else. Saying it as someone who left that eco-system not that long ago and boy do I miss it. Now is a good time to switch to their silicon.
mindfulhack 6y ago
What supports that proposition? Plenty supports the opposite, such as Intel causing massive problems for several years e.g. to the MacBook Pro line, with overheating and thermal issues. They've been failing to innovate at the speed Apple would otherwise be able to, for a long time now.
- posix_me_less 6y ago
  > "Intel causing massive problems for several years e.g. to the MacBook Pro line, with overheating and thermal issues." Do you not realize how ridiculous this statement is? Apple knows what CPU models are going into their laptops, they could properly design hardware and software to prevent overheating and degradation.
  - rowanG077 6y ago
    They could. But that means the macbook pro would perform worse on all the superficial benchmarks.
- pier25 6y ago
  There are plenty of arguments, but E2E control is probably the strongest one. It's not only about CPUs. Remember Nvidiagate or Radeongate? If Apple takes full control of the hardware like they did with iPhone/iPad/Watch they will (most likely) end up making better products. But also: - Single architecture on all their products - More perf per watt

Aperocky 6y ago

That ship has sailed in early 2010s. Once Apple started making their own silicon there's no going back. There's no good reason that so much of the world is using an architecture that has consistently shown less efficiency, especially since the rise of distributed computing. It is bound to happen.

melling 6y ago

i wonder about others. Someone posted a video discussing RISC-V, which i just finished. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23934078 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23934078 I haven’t heard much about it but the video makes the point that Chinese firms will be adopting it. An open source cpu, with no licensing fees, is bound to catch on.

shmerl 6y ago

Whatever Apple is switching to won't compare to x86_64 anyway, especially AMD.