4 ms·

They already said they would be 100% off x86 in two years: https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2020/06/apple-announces-mac-transition-to-apple-silicon/ https://www.a

They already said they would be 100% off x86 in two years: https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2020/06/apple-announces-mac-transition-to-apple-silicon/ https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2020/06/apple-announces-mac-t... We are still only 6 months into that transition.

lstamour 5y ago
The page you're citing contradicts that statement -- they will not be 100% off x86, but instead will offer 100% of their products with the option of buying an Apple ARM chip: > This transition will also establish a common architecture across all Apple products, making it far easier for developers to write and optimize their apps for the entire ecosystem. > Apple plans to ship the first Mac with Apple silicon by the end of the year and complete the transition in about two years. Apple will continue to support and release new versions of macOS for Intel-based Macs for years to come, and has exciting new Intel-based Macs in development. I would expect Intel-based Mac Pros to continue for as long as there's a market for them. Probably at least 2-4 years after the "transition" finishes. (The last spec bump in 1-2 years, and sales end 3-4 years from now...) It's also worth pointing out that Apple supports its products roughly 7 years from when they're sold, which means Apple will likely continue supporting Intel-based MacOS for at least another decade, possibly as much as 13-15 years. That said, I wouldn't buy an Intel Mac after 2024 and expect the same experience even if Apple supports it until 2031 or later: In just a few years, I'd expect Apple would have created even more MacOS features uniquely suited to the ARM chips they're now making.
- thesandlord 5y ago
  I'm sure they will support x86 for years, but I have a feeling they will stop selling new products with x86 rather quickly. If you look at the PPC to x86 transition [0] it happened faster than predicted, and OS support only lasted 3 years after it was done. IMO Microsoft is the company that heavily prioritizes backwards compatibility, while Apple is happy to drop support where necessary to move forward. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_transition_to_Intel_processors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_transition_to_Intel_proces...
  - anthk 5y ago
    Yes, but in the PPC era Apple published amazing quality products several times superior to W98SE, W2000 and even XP. Now, until the M1, Intel Macs where pretty much mediocre, even against a (fully configured OFC) KDE [3-5] BSD/Linux setup. Even with their iThingie ecosystem integration.
  - lstamour 5y ago
    You're using the transition that everyone wanted to point a rosy picture. Everyone wanted Intel chips and Wintel compatibility. PPC was too slow, too hot. Fact is, until they can get nVidia GTX compatibility or quality, there will be a significant market of 3D and gaming that does not want to switch. And I say this as someone who very much likes my new M1 Macbook and wants to convince the rest of the family and friends to never again buy an x86-based laptop computer. If Apple can add 3D and gaming chips equivalent to the GTX 3000 series with software support, all within 2 years? Amazing and that speeds up their switchover -- but Adobe, for one, has still not yet updated Adobe After Effects and likely won't for at least a year, even though they announced they would. I'll remind folks that Adobe said they would consider adding Metal support to After Effects almost five years ago and still hasn't. Other apps are in a similar state. I don't doubt that Apple would like the transition to be quick as well as seamless, and I think most portable products will transition very quickly. But unless Apple wants to leave the Pro market they just entered by making things too unstable for Pros, they will tread carefully on eliminating sales and support for Intel. Especially because even now they are selling 16" MacBook Pros that run Intel, and Intel Mac Pros, and 27" iMacs (formerly Pros) and all three of these platforms should ideally be supported for five years, minimum, ideally six given we could count the last year as the "seventh" year of support.

lstamour 5y ago

The page you're citing contradicts that statement -- they will not be 100% off x86, but instead will offer 100% of their products with the option of buying an Apple ARM chip: > This transition will also establish a common architecture across all Apple products, making it far easier for developers to write and optimize their apps for the entire ecosystem. > Apple plans to ship the first Mac with Apple silicon by the end of the year and complete the transition in about two years. Apple will continue to support and release new versions of macOS for Intel-based Macs for years to come, and has exciting new Intel-based Macs in development. I would expect Intel-based Mac Pros to continue for as long as there's a market for them. Probably at least 2-4 years after the "transition" finishes. (The last spec bump in 1-2 years, and sales end 3-4 years from now...) It's also worth pointing out that Apple supports its products roughly 7 years from when they're sold, which means Apple will likely continue supporting Intel-based MacOS for at least another decade, possibly as much as 13-15 years. That said, I wouldn't buy an Intel Mac after 2024 and expect the same experience even if Apple supports it until 2031 or later: In just a few years, I'd expect Apple would have created even more MacOS features uniquely suited to the ARM chips they're now making.

thesandlord 5y ago
I'm sure they will support x86 for years, but I have a feeling they will stop selling new products with x86 rather quickly. If you look at the PPC to x86 transition [0] it happened faster than predicted, and OS support only lasted 3 years after it was done. IMO Microsoft is the company that heavily prioritizes backwards compatibility, while Apple is happy to drop support where necessary to move forward. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_transition_to_Intel_processors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_transition_to_Intel_proces...
- anthk 5y ago
  Yes, but in the PPC era Apple published amazing quality products several times superior to W98SE, W2000 and even XP. Now, until the M1, Intel Macs where pretty much mediocre, even against a (fully configured OFC) KDE [3-5] BSD/Linux setup. Even with their iThingie ecosystem integration.
- lstamour 5y ago
  You're using the transition that everyone wanted to point a rosy picture. Everyone wanted Intel chips and Wintel compatibility. PPC was too slow, too hot. Fact is, until they can get nVidia GTX compatibility or quality, there will be a significant market of 3D and gaming that does not want to switch. And I say this as someone who very much likes my new M1 Macbook and wants to convince the rest of the family and friends to never again buy an x86-based laptop computer. If Apple can add 3D and gaming chips equivalent to the GTX 3000 series with software support, all within 2 years? Amazing and that speeds up their switchover -- but Adobe, for one, has still not yet updated Adobe After Effects and likely won't for at least a year, even though they announced they would. I'll remind folks that Adobe said they would consider adding Metal support to After Effects almost five years ago and still hasn't. Other apps are in a similar state. I don't doubt that Apple would like the transition to be quick as well as seamless, and I think most portable products will transition very quickly. But unless Apple wants to leave the Pro market they just entered by making things too unstable for Pros, they will tread carefully on eliminating sales and support for Intel. Especially because even now they are selling 16" MacBook Pros that run Intel, and Intel Mac Pros, and 27" iMacs (formerly Pros) and all three of these platforms should ideally be supported for five years, minimum, ideally six given we could count the last year as the "seventh" year of support.