Well, sure, it’s referencing the same Apple dev documentation bits as we’ve been discussing for weeks. None of these YouTube videos bring any new information, they just package it in an unnecessarily verbose form.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Anyone else used to be very pro-ARM but now having second thoughts?
- Thread starter Spungoflex
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Well, sure, it’s referencing the same Apple dev documentation bits as we’ve been discussing for weeks. None of these YouTube videos bring any new information, they just package it in an unnecessarily verbose form.
ITT most users haven’t had the time to read the documentation (myself included) so thought some may find it useful.
It looks very much like Apple DOESN'T want to lock down the Apple Silicon Macs in the way that you're fearing. And, to be fair, with the T2 being what it is on Intel Macs, that was a valid fear! But no, apparently, you can set the Secure Boot settings on a per-OS basis on an Apple Silicon Mac, whereas Secure Boot settings applied to the entire Mac with a T2 Intel Mac. So, you'll be able to have Secure Boot turned on for one OS, and have it off for another in the event that you need to have a partition still running Big Sur for backwards compatibility when its successors have come out.
Honestly, I'm pleasantly surprised here. Now they just need to do it with iPads and iPhones. (Hah...like that'll ever happen.)
You do realize that one analyst is spot on like 95% of the time, right?
There've been others corroborating it too; to my knowledge, it's not just him. Also, if we REALLY want to be technical, though the first 15" MacBook Pro was announced at the same keynote as the first Intel iMacs (albeit later in the announcement as Steve's "One More Thing..."), the iMacs shipped first. I remember getting my 20" iMac Core Duo before the 15" MacBook Pros even started shipping.
For this particular transition, it makes perfect sense for Apple to target the lower-end Macs first because Apple has the capability of putting Apple Silicon SoCs into Macs that outperform their Intel counter-parts TODAY. Apple doesn't yet have something to take on the 9th Gen 8-Core Core i9. They do, however, have chips that can and will easily best a 6-core 8th Gen Core i7 (and, by extension, any quad-core i7 that you'd find in a 13" MacBook Pro) TODAY. So, if the 21.5" iMac is to become the ARM-ified 23" iMac, that makes perfect sense. Similarly, if the 13" MacBook Pro launches alongside with Apple Silicon, that also makes sense as that performance exists today. Apple would not have to work hard to get that Mac on the market with an Apple Silicon SoC and have it completely decimate the 8th and 10th gen quad-core CPUs that are in that machine currently.
I strongly suspect that the Windows 10 for ARM64 on Apple Silicon Macs saga is far from over. Do recall that the PowerPC to Intel transition was announced in June of 2005 and with the first Intel iMacs and 15" MacBook Pros introduced in January 2006. Boot Camp didn't come out until April 2006 and when it did it was a complete surprise to everyone and a total 180-degree reversal of Apple's then-stance about supporting Windows on the Intel Mac.
This case is much more complicated given that Microsoft's licensing for Windows 10 for ARM64 is not as straightforward as its x86 and x86-64 counterparts. Also by the fact that we still don't really know much about our virtualization options quite yet (other than that Parallels is committed to supporting Apple Silicon Macs). There are a lot of unknowns; just as there were at this point in the Intel transition in 2005.
The x86 version of VMware Fusion and the current x86 Parallels Desktop for Mac both won't work in Rosetta. New ARM versions need to be made for Apple Silicon and it seems like x86 emulation (a la Connectix Virtual PC during the PowerPC era) is off the table.
Removable Graphics in a Mac laptop? Or are you talking eGPU support? Mac laptops don't have removable graphics and they never have. eGPU support remains to be seen. With Apple committing to Thunderbolt on Apple Silicon Macs, I can't say it'd be off the table, so long as it didn't interfere with the processing already being done by the IGP.
It was much more technically feasible for them to port it to Intel macOS seeing as it's the same processor architecture and the same graphics architecture. Performance was never the issue; any recent 13" MacBook Pro could run Overwatch comfortably on medium-ish settings in Windows. The issue is the game engine. The problem with Apple Silicon GPUs is that PC/XBox/PS4 game developers don't want to go near them. Case in point: The tvOS-based Apple TVs' SoCs (A8 and A10X) have console quality graphics. They also have support for game controllers. Yet gaming on them outside of iOS ports is scarce. This is the issue facing Apple Silicon Macs when it comes too gaming. Not that it isn't a powerful machine, but that the kinds of kinds of developers that you really want to see making Mac games are just not interested in making them for the Mac.
People have been making these claims for almost ten years. Still no signs of locking down.
[automerge]1594382863[/automerge]
The issue are the drivers and the API. The architecture does not matter if the software implementation is different. MacOS does not implement DirectX, neither did it ship gaming quality drivers. OpenGL never properly worked for this purpose either. Metal made things much better but still, driver quality was a big issue. The IHVs simply don’t have the incentive to polish their drivers - their sales is not driven by the gaming performance they provide.
With Apple Silicon, Macs will have both gaming grade hardware and gaming grade drivers. They will require the developer to use a new API or at least an engine that uses that API. But this will make low-latency, predictable performance gaming a possibility on macOS - for the first time in the modern times.
Last edited:
It’s not conjecture As it has basis of fact. Look in macOS and see how it is being locked down version after version. If you don’t want to see it then you’re deluding yoursel.
That doesn’t mean it will be locked down like iPhone (Mac has longer history than iPhone). And yes, it is conjecture.
Last edited:
I don’t see anything being locked down. What I see are sensible security improvements. No normal user, no matter your knowledge level, has any business overwriting system files. If you want to have full control (and full responsibility) over your system, build yourself a Linux box.
By the way, contrary to your claims, Big Sur relaxes some of the security features - e.g secure boot being made a per OS setting.
You just contradict yourself in the opening paragraph. I get you want to be an Apple cheerleader. Fine. But bottom line is I won't be buying an iPad Mac when it’s released.
[automerge]1594388959[/automerge]
Sometimes you need to call a spade a spade.
I don’t see any contradiction in what I said. I’m merely pointing out that your definition of “locking down” is naive and non-productive. You are basically arguing that you should have the full right to shoot your self in the foot if you so desire, while I am arguing that this is not a useful definition of what a “right” constitutes.
Yes, there are restrictions in modern macOS, nobody denies that. But these restrictions are motivated by security and they do not impact the normal user experience. Unless the user wants to do weird stuff like hacking the OS - with all the unfortunate consequences. If you absolutely want to do that, just turn these safety features off. And if your use case requires total control - use some other system. Mac was never designed with this use case in mind. It is a complex opinionated system.
I watched a video earlier where Apple explicitly stated that with Macs you will be allowed to install ANY correctly signed MacOS that's compatible, including older ones.
Explore the new system architecture of Apple silicon Macs - WWDC20 - Videos - Apple Developer
Discover how Macs with Apple silicon will deliver modern advantages using Apple's System-on-Chip (SoC) architecture. Leveraging a unified...
Go to ~15:00 for the boot process changes.
I don't think his percentage is quite that high. Even if it is, a lot of his claims are "new MacBook Pro" and gets the timing off. The timing is most of the trick, there's always a new model coming.
In this instance, the only corroborative sources I've seen have either cited no one or cited Kuo. Which means they are all citing Kuo. Its exactly how conservative news works: One basement dwelling lunatic who doesn't have enough money to Bedworth suing claims something demented, all the bigger outlets publish articles that use language like "reports are flooding in saying that XXXXX is the case...". They all copy each other and all use language that means they can't be sued because they are reporting on the report, not reporting the falsehood. In this case its all reports on rumours so they are free to print lazy space filler copy that will get them clicks because most "journalists" are as lazy as they are useless.
I'm not saying he's always useless, but its likely a lot of his inside info is coming from factory workers in China or elsewhere in the supply chain. Some of those sources won't necessarily know the difference between the case parts for a 2020 13" MBP and MBA, or they might have snuck out a model number for a new display panel technology but they don't know which machine its going in first.I suspect he is getting very patchy info and having to extrapolate the rest.
Like I say, it doesn't make a lot of sense to me that the recently released MBP13 would be first in line. Doesn't mean I'm right, but he's dropped the claim about the iMac and is already changing his claim about the MBP so I think I'm probably on to something.
To me it would have made sense todo the MBP16 and the iMac first, or maybe the MBA, but when the new Intel iMac arrives all three will have been recently updated so its really anyone's guess at this point. Any of the current model, or a totally new machine with a new name and significant changes. The all screen iMac mockups would have made a lot of sense. (I think that would be really cool if Apple made the glass layer on the front a bit like the epaper display on a Kindle so it displayed a big Apple logo in the middle when the Mac display was powered off.)
I wonder if Microsoft will have any interest in trying to unseat Parallels and VMWare Fusion for Mac by being the only ones who can build virtualised Windows 10 for ARM.
This sounds a little naive too. Apple always gives compelling reasons why it does anything dickish, monopolistic, draconian or money-grabbing but that's just the RDF in full flow. I wouldn't worry too much, someone will work out how to shoehorn other operating systems onto these new Macs sooner or later.
In the past it was always a big deal that Apple wouldn't license their OS to other computer makers but there is nothing stopping Apple from agreeing to sign a 3rd party OS to run on their Macs. They already made their money if you bought the Mac, as long as you have a compelling reason or product, I don't see why they'd mind that much if you want to run something else on it.
Oh, don’t let me get started about Apple’s ridiculously money grabbing, like what they do with charger cables and $30 pencil caps...
But I really don’t see any issue with their OS model. With a Mac, I have full control over my data, I can run any software or tool I want, I can build my own software, and I can use a wide array of appliances. I am not locked in or restricted in any way. So I can’t write to system partition by default - why does this even matter? And as to hardware itself - Apple always locked it. It’s their business model. I don’t see how inability to run other systems on it violates the users freedom. Same for running macOS on non-Mac hardware.
The timing is not most of the trick. With iPhones, it doesn't even matter because iPhones are released in September and have been for the last decade. Even if he's off by a month or two, he gets the order right most of the time.
You've got Bloomberg, Sonny Dickson and Kuo. All of them are closer to accurate than any source of Apple rumors has been in the history of Mac rumors (and MacRumors). Kuo is an analyst, not someone with inside sources at Apple. His information comes via watching the supply chain. Apple doesn't manufacture their own parts. Apple doesn't BUILD the computers themselves either. All Kuo does is watch what Apple is doing publicly and speculate from there. He doesn't suck at it even if his timing isn't 100%.
The 16" MacBook Pro would make sense to go from a marketing standpoint. It doesn't make sense from the standpoint of Apple's ARM capabilities as they stand right now, though. Apple doesn't necessarily have the capability of besting the 9th Gen 8-core Intel Core i9 H-series CPU. They NEED to not only beat that CPU, but they need to do it handily. That isn't there yet and likely won't be there this calendar year, hence why that one won't go first.
For the MacBook Air to come out of the gate first with ARM, it would likely overpower the 13" MacBook Pro that currently exists. This makes very little marketing sense if Apple wants to keep both the Air and the 13" Pro around together.
The 13" Pro going first makes total sense given these two realities. Redoing the iMac for ARM makes more sense than an Intel iMac coming out, but Kuo isn't the only source suggesting that we have another Intel iMac. Furthermore, if you recall, every single Mac got one more PowerPC refresh in 2005 following the Intel transition announcement before the move to Intel. In fact, the iMac got the most significant update of all of them (unless you count dual-core PowerPC G5 processors on the final Power Mac G5).
Also, the claims regarding the 13" MacBook Pro moving first haven't changed. He's added that an Apple Silicon MacBook Air is to follow and that the 16" MacBook Pro and 13" MacBook Pro will see a huge redesign in which the 13" Pro is replaced by a 14.1" Pro. I agree that's one 13" Pro refresh too many, but for all we know, this big redesign may be pushed even later into 2021 due to COVID-19 or other unrelated elements of the Apple Silicon transition.
Microsoft doesn't stand anything to gain from doing that. I do believe that if dual-booting Apple Silicon macOS and Windows 10 for ARM64 is to happen (by Apple and Microsoft reaching some sort of deal), it won't be in the form of "Boot Camp Assistant" and an acquired ISO file from Microsoft. If anything, my guess is that they'd coordinate it so that you just buy Windows 10 from the Mac App Store, and what you get is an assistant jointly developed by Apple and Microsoft that does the same kind of repartitioning that Boot Camp did, and then commences a customized version of that installer that already has all of the Apple drivers baked in. Apple only allows its own operating systems on the Mac App Store, but there's no reason why, if they collaborate that closely with Microsoft on everything, that they couldn't bless it being there in that fashion. But that's just my guess.
The main reason why they haven't bothered making it easier to boot an alternative OS on those machines is that there really aren't that many other alternative OSes for that machine to even boot. You don't have a desktop version of Ubuntu out for ARM64 yet (only the Server variant), and you'll probably have similar issues getting something like Mint, or OpenSUSE. That's not to say that there aren't some out there (I just saw that CentOS has an ARM64 version), but they're not the most popular Linux distros. Hard to justify them supporting alternative OSes when that's the case. Again, I strongly suspect that this will change down the line. I also suspect that Windows 10 for ARM64 will become more common on Apple Silicon Macs eventually (either via dual-booting or via virtualization). Apple and Microsoft both stand too much to gain to not give it a go.
Their stance on booting alternative OSes at this point in the transition directly echos their stance on doing it with Intel Macs at this point in the Intel transition. They didn't reverse course until the first Intel Macs had been on the market for three months (some 9 or so months following the initial transition announcement). The night is young!
You could run Linux on PPC Macs if you wanted to. I never knew anyone with a good reason to run a custom OS on Apple hardware but I get the argument that if you spend a few grand on a computer its not unreasonable to expect total freedom to install what you want unless its limited for genuine technical reasons not political or commercial choices.
People are used to having that freedom and they perceive Apple taking it away unjust. We've all had to listen to Android users bleat on endlessly about how they can customise the font on their EULA too. Its also the sort of thing that seems to bother Americans disproportionately.
People are used to having that freedom and they perceive Apple taking it away unjust. We've all had to listen to Android users bleat on endlessly about how they can customise the font on their EULA too. Its also the sort of thing that seems to bother Americans disproportionately.
You seem to lack any understanding of the statistics in play with this sort of thing. When you make predictions, no-one remembers the ones you miss, especially if you remind them frequently of your hits. iPhone rumours for the next one start the day the previous one is released (if not sooner). An analyst should have a good idea of all the different technologies that are nearing readiness from various tech companies across the world.
Thinner enclosures, faster chips, bigger storage, better displays, better battery, better camera.
If you keep track of who is taking orders for exactly what parts (as an analyst would), it doesn't take extraordinary powers of prediction to narrow down the likely options. If the OLED panel doesn't make it into the phone you said it would, They "must have had last minute production issues" and "it'll be in the next one". So you're almost always right if you don't count the timing. The timing is almost the only thing he could get wrong.
Apple's supply chain is inside info compared to you and I wildly speculating. Factory workers in China are part of the supply chain. I'm not sure why you're trying to correct me when I literally said the words "supply chain". I know how Apple operates quite well thanks.
I'm also not sure why you are defending Kuo so staunchly. Is he a friend of yours? I didn't even say he sucked, I specifically said he didn't know any more than anyone else when it comes to the first AS Mac. Since he has altered his prediction entirely, I am quite clearly right about that.
I also don't know why you are acting like I criticised Bloomberg or Sonny Dickson. If you really insist on getting into the pointless details, the burden is on you to cite sources showing that there are other reports corroborating Kuo's predictions of iMac and 13" MBP being first AS Macs, that in turn cite their own sources that aren't Kuo.
Respectfully, we have no idea where they are at with Laptop or desktop CPU and GPUs. We can speculate based on what we do know, but since we don't know exactly how long Apple has been developing these Mac SoCs, we are stumbling blindly. If they have been building Mac chips based on A series tech since the A1, they could have something absolutely stunning up their sleeves. It seems a gamble to announce a two year transition in the hope you can build an adequate GPU for your flagship laptop or desktop.
If they release anything but the 16" or iMac first, some cannibalisation of sales is going to occur. Or AS Macs will be a grave disappointment. I suppose they could look to transition to a range that just narrowly exceeds the last gen of Intel, but would they be drip feeding their performance to us to make sure they have years worth of upgrades to keep them going? Or so they can buy time to make higher end ones for the pro Macs? Its really difficult to see the best way to do this given where everything is in its upgrade cycle.
Kuo wasn't suggesting that at all. He suggested we would get a new AS iMac. We know there will be another Intel iMac because Apple told us there was more Intel Macs coming and the Geekbench scores for it have leaked. The question is whether there will be a redesign for the new Intel one or whether that waits for Arm.
I don't see any logic in the 13" MBP going first because a new Air could demonstrate a better performance upgrade without infringing as much on the 16", but both the Air and Pro 13 have been updated quite recently so By design or otherwise, Apple have completely thrown us all off the scent.
Yes. Of particular note is that the iMac G5 had been refreshed with a thinner case and iSight camera only 4 months earlier. Supposedly this should have been the Intel iMac but it wasn't ready so Apple essentially cobbled together a G5 model from their established, mature, stable PPC platform rather than risking a buggy Intel machine.
Chill the **** out man, I said, he's right 95% of the time, not 100% of the time. And it's not like he's lifting the veil and telling us everything. Just what the supply chain indicates, which isn't insubstantial.
Again, chill out. Seriously. This is a rumors site, I don't have any proof that Apple is going to do anything and neither do you.
I'm going off of the performance of what Apple has already released.
Apple has already released processors that beat out every processor that has ever graced a MacBook Air and a 13" MacBook Pro. Apple has not yet released processors that beat out an 8th or even 9th generation Intel Core i9 H-series processor. If you know how Apple operates like you say you do, then you know that they won't release an Apple Silicon 16" MacBook Pro until they can claim unilaterally that it is faster than any Intel-based predecessor model by at least a factor of 4. Especially given the history of the 15" MacBook Pro immediately prior to the 16" MacBook Pro's release (when it came to underpowered CPUs), this is a crucial requirement for Apple. The A12X/A12Z isn't at that level of performance. It is at the level of performance where it is faster enough than even the 10th generation Intel Core U-series processors in the higher-end 13" MacBook Pro for an Apple Silicon version to comfortably see the light of day. Apple is moving to 5nm, and A14 may be beastly and a sizable jump from A12 and A13. But it would have to be a very sizable difference to eclipse the current Intel 16" MacBook Pros in 2020. You say it doesn't make business sense, yet you don't defend the notion that it makes any technological sense.
Actually, that's not entirely true. We know that they're at least at the level of the A12Z and we can track their rate of progress. They're likely not further along than that, because otherwise we'd see an A13X and that'd be the processor going into the current developer transition kits. The 3.06GHz Pentium 4 that went into the Intel Developer kits in 2005 were pretty high end for that time. For them to be at the level needed to comfortably surpass an Intel 8-core 9th Gen Core i9 H series processor, they'd need a substantial upgrade over the A12Z. This would explain why they'd need two years to complete this transition rather than the single year (if you count the start from WWDC 2005) or six months (if you count from Macworld 2006) that it took to complete the Intel transition. The ARM architecture is getting faster at a quick pace and Apple is pushing that ahead like it's no one's business, but it's rate of growth isn't so great that you're gonna get a 16" MacBook Pro with their Silicon this year.
For someone who claims to know Apple, you don't seem to remember the last transition very well. Last time, they didn't start with their most powerful Macs. Nor was their first Mac laptop with Intel their highest end one either. The Core Duo iMacs didn't cannibalize sales of the Power Mac G5, nor did the 15" MacBook Pro cannibalize sales of the 17" PowerBook G4.
An Apple Silicon 13" MacBook Pro that comes close to or even matches the performance level of the Intel 16" MacBook Pro will disappoint no one. If anything, it will reassure those waiting for such a machine that when the time comes, the 16" MacBook Pro's Apple Silicon based replacement will REALLY kick serious ass.
Benchmarks from machines that never see the light of day are not unheard of. More Intel Macs are coming because Apple isn't ready to start replacing the entire line yet. Again, it's easier to transition the lower-end hardware because the Apple Silicon processors that we know about today already outperform the current Intel chips in those machines. Apple would need to have a MONSTER A14 series lined up for anything much past the low-end Macs. Given benchmarks that are available today, it's safe to assume that anything beefier than a 6-core Core i7 won't be ready with an Apple Silicon replacement in 2020. Anything less than that is fair game. Sadly, that's only half of the 16" MacBook Pro line. I know you're REALLY eager for that one to go first for some reason, but it ain't gonna happen.
Apple doesn't update their Macs in any kind of order anymore. They update them as parts become available.
Also, if you upgrade the Air with Apple Silicon, it could cannibalize the 13" Pro in the exact same way that you're saying upgrading the 13" Pro would cannibalize the 16" Pro.
Regardless, this sort of thing is not outside of the realm of possibility. Frankly, if I had to guess, the last Intel iMacs will keep the current design and the first Apple Silicon Macs will move to a thinner design. The thermal architecture for the Intel iMacs really is as thin as it can be. Apple being Apple wants something thinner and it's not going to be comfortable to do prior to Apple Silicon without serious thermal issues. But that's just my educated guess.
That’s what I was thinking. The “I bought it, it’s my property, I should be able to do whatever with it” is so distinctly American
As long as it’s clear what a product does and what it doesn’t, and as long as it fulfills my expectations, I am ok with any reasonable restrictions. I used to tinker with computers a lot when I was younger, I was even making my own water cooling equipment (fun times, my custom made copper water block hit a leak and fried my PC one day), but as I grew older I just wanted a stable system that enforces a reasonable set of defaults and would just work. MacOS is not a tinkerers choice, neither does it have to be.
I'm just disagreeing with someone who has already backtracked on a prediction that wasn't as 95% as you claim. You're the one defending his honour like it matters.
I have no honor that I care about defending to someone I'm never going to meet on an online forum. You're saying the man's predictions don't mean squat. I'm telling you that they're right enough of the time to be taken into consideration. That's really all that's happening here. That and it sounds like you have your heart set on the 16" MacBook Pro going first when there are a lot of signs to indicate that is not going to happen, Kuo's prediction only being one of which.
I'm a fairly new Mac "user" (not really a user per se, just got an old Mac mini to play around), but I'm still excited with this transition. Why? Well, I'm always excited about tech, even if it's Apple (I'm a Windows/Android user). Plus, if Apple can show how much they leap over intel using their own silicon, it will at least pushed intel to do better. Let's face it, intel is stagnant. AMD is doing great, but majority of OEMs are still putting intel on most of their models. PC is stagnant, for years.
It will be an exciting year in tech.
It will be an exciting year in tech.
I don't know whose comments you're reading but clearly it isn't mine. I said his latest prediction was wrong. Which it is. He's already backtracked more than half of it. I also said he didn't really know that much more than most people which you seem to agree with while simultaneously stating that he all but never makes a mistake. I'll state again though, his predictions look more accurate and/or informed than they are. I took his prediction into consideration when I bought my 16", but now its looking less and less likely to be accurate.
I said you were defending his honour, not yours.
Again, I much prefer the 16" to stay as is for as long as possible. If you're going to reply again, please make sure you've read and understood what I said otherwise you're just arguing with yourself.
The only sign the 16" won't be first is Kuo's shonky prediction. Clearly you're not reading the rest of the thread either.