3 ms·

So the M1 strikes me as the result of something that Apple has the ability to pull off from time to time. Perhaps you haven't been paying attention? Apple shi

So the M1 strikes me as the result of something that Apple has the ability to pull off from time to time. Perhaps you haven't been paying attention? Apple shipped 64-bit ARM processors for the iPhone at least a year before Qualcomm could do it for Android devices. The reaction to the A7 was similar to what we're seeing now with the M1—not possible, there's some trickery going on, etc. Apple is pretty good at this processor transition thing, going from 68k to PowerPC to Intel to ARM. And it more than makes up for some pretty spectacular tactical mis-steps (I’m looking at you, puck mouse, cube mac, butterfly keyboard). Except for the recent keyboard issues, you're literally talking about another era. I wouldn't put the shape of the mouse for the 1998 iMac in the same category as transitioning a $9 billion revenue product line to a radically different processor architecture.

dwighttk 6y ago
> not possible, there's some trickery going on “...and even if they did it, it doesn’t matter” (though I guess not many are saying that about M1)
- alwillis 6y ago
  Yes—there was a lot of “it won’t matter” talk when the A7 shipped.
hajile 6y ago
> Apple shipped 64-bit ARM processors for the iPhone at least a year before Qualcomm could do it for Android devices. The reaction to the A7 was similar to what we're seeing now with the M1—not possible, there's some trickery going on, etc. That is because it is not possible to ship a top-end design for a new ISA in that amount of time. The more reasonable answer is they had been working on a new core design for some years before. AMD has hinted that their Zen design makes it relatively easy to swap the x86 frontend for an ARM frontend. Apple was considering buying MIPS around that time. I suspect they strong-armed ARM into accepting their ARMv8 proposal because it was good and because Apple buying MIPS would be disastrous for ARM's share price. At that point, it wasn't faster than possible, it was just designing the last part of the chip (or if both frontends were being worked on in tandem, cancelling one of them and focusing everyone on the other). This explains why ARM announced v8 and then took the full 4 years to ship their first low-power core (A53) and even longer to ship their bad first try at a high-performance core (A57 -- with the more baked A72 being superior in almost every way).
DonHopkins 6y ago
Don't forget Apple's first transition from 6502 to 68k. That was pretty bumpy though.
- alwillis 6y ago
  I was only talking about the Mac, which never used the 6502–that was the Apple II. The Apple IIgs did end up on the 65816.

dwighttk 6y ago

> not possible, there's some trickery going on “...and even if they did it, it doesn’t matter” (though I guess not many are saying that about M1)

alwillis 6y ago
Yes—there was a lot of “it won’t matter” talk when the A7 shipped.

hajile 6y ago

> Apple shipped 64-bit ARM processors for the iPhone at least a year before Qualcomm could do it for Android devices. The reaction to the A7 was similar to what we're seeing now with the M1—not possible, there's some trickery going on, etc. That is because it is not possible to ship a top-end design for a new ISA in that amount of time. The more reasonable answer is they had been working on a new core design for some years before. AMD has hinted that their Zen design makes it relatively easy to swap the x86 frontend for an ARM frontend. Apple was considering buying MIPS around that time. I suspect they strong-armed ARM into accepting their ARMv8 proposal because it was good and because Apple buying MIPS would be disastrous for ARM's share price. At that point, it wasn't faster than possible, it was just designing the last part of the chip (or if both frontends were being worked on in tandem, cancelling one of them and focusing everyone on the other). This explains why ARM announced v8 and then took the full 4 years to ship their first low-power core (A53) and even longer to ship their bad first try at a high-performance core (A57 -- with the more baked A72 being superior in almost every way).

DonHopkins 6y ago

Don't forget Apple's first transition from 6502 to 68k. That was pretty bumpy though.

alwillis 6y ago
I was only talking about the Mac, which never used the 6502–that was the Apple II. The Apple IIgs did end up on the 65816.