ARM acknowledging MacBooks??

[huge_apple_fangirl]

I just saw this article on Arm’s website from a month ago: https://newsroom.arm.com/blog/best-arm-laptops-for-school-work-and-play and found it very interesting that they mention MacBooks as being “built on Arm”. They also link to this: https://www.arm.com/markets/consumer-technologies/laptops/consumer which shows MacBook models alongside WoA devices as ARM laptops.

As far as I can tell, this is the first time Arm has acknowledged MacBooks as an ARM platform? Which I find interesting. Whenever they talked about ARM laptops before, they talked about Windows PCs and Chromebooks and their partnerships with Microsoft, Google, MediaTek, OEMs, etc. I assumed this was because those companies licensed Arm’s designs directly and were working more directly with Arm. So it makes sense to mention those companies and not Apple, which designs its own chips and competes with Arm’s partners. Apple itself never mentions Arm and why would they want to be listed on Arm’s website as another “ARM device” alongside PCs? I’m surprised Arm is changing this up now and wondering what changed? Maybe with the Qualcomm suit loss they’ve decided to embrace third-party ARM designs and Apple along with that? Presumably Apple allowed themselves to be featured on Arm’s website which is interesting.

Anyone who has more thoughts or information on this would be appreciated!

 

[jlc1978]

Given that Apple was one of the original investors in Arm and has arguably done the most with the Arm processors across the variety of devices it makes sense for Arm to finally recognize that Apple has really brought Arm into the mainstream, even if most people don’t realize that mostly all of their devices use some version of the Arm architecture.

 

[JPack]

Arm used to be content selling designs and letting other companies sell a finished product. (B2B)

More recently, it was revealed Arm wants to develop its own chips. This requires a change in strategy and marketing to end-users directly (B2C). This why you're seeing these changes. Arm wants to be associated with high performance and long battery life.

Presumably Apple allowed themselves to be featured on Arm’s website which is interesting.

Apple's marketing team would never agree to MacBook being built on "Arm architecture." But there's nothing they can do because it's a fact, however minor.

 

[maflynn]

As far as I can tell, this is the first time Arm has acknowledged MacBooks as an ARM platform?

I don't think they swept the knowledge under the rug, and have been upfront who their customers have been.

 

[maflynn]

Apple itself never mentions Arm

Why would they want to shift the credit from themselves to arm? While I'm not taking away what apple has done with the arm platform - something that qualcomm has yet to catch up too, its clear that they want everyone to think apple is where the innovation has occurred not another company (arm)

 

[jlc1978]

Why would they want to shift the credit from themselves to arm? While I'm not taking away what apple has done with the arm platform - something that qualcomm has yet to catch up too, its clear that they want everyone to think apple is where the innovation has occurred not another company (arm)

I think it's a bit more complicated than that. The RISC concept used by ARM was from a project at Berkeley as well as other's work. While the ARM architecture was commercialized by Acorn, Apple's Advanced Technology Group was involved with its development early on; a collaboration which resulted in the Newton and ARM's founding by Acorn, Apple and VSLI. I guess the lesson is innovation in the industry builds on work by others as it moves forward.

Interestingly, the Newton's commercial failure resulted in ARM pivoting its business model and laid the groundwork for today's ARM.

I doubt we'll ever see an "ARM Inside" sticker, and Apple did make ARM change its name from Acorn RISC Machines to Advanced RISC Machines.

 

[ADGrant]

I think it's a bit more complicated than that. The RISC concept used by ARM was from a project at Berkeley as well as other's work. While the ARM architecture was commercialized by Acorn, Apple's Advanced Technology Group was involved with its development early on; a collaboration which resulted in the Newton and ARM's founding by Acorn, Apple and VSLI. I guess the lesson is innovation in the industry builds on work by others as it moves forward.

Interestingly, the Newton's commercial failure resulted in ARM pivoting its business model and laid the groundwork for today's ARM.

I doubt we'll ever see an "ARM Inside" sticker, and Apple did make ARM change its name from Acorn RISC Machines to Advanced RISC Machines.

Apple may have cofounded the ARM company and worked with ARM on the SoC used in the Newton (the first mobile application of the ARM processor), the original ARM CPUs were developed by Acorn in the UK for use in their own computers. Apple was not involved in this at all. In 1985, the first ARM CPU was released as a co-processor for the 6502 based BBC Micro Acorn developed for the BBC (probably the most advanced and fastest 6502 microcomputer of the time period).

Though the original ARM design was inspired by the work at Berkley, Acorn was also influenced by the design of the 6502 that the ARM cpu was designed to replace.

Acorn also developed an ARM version of BBC Basic at the same time and a couple of years later launched the first desktop computer with an ARM CPU and ARM based operating system called Risc OS. Apple was not involved at this point, instead an Italian company Olivetti provided the financial support needed to launch ARM commercially.

 

[jlc1978]

Apple may have cofounded the ARM company and worked with ARM on the SoC used in the Newton (the first mobile application of the ARM processor), the original ARM CPUs were developed by Acorn in the UK for use in their own computers. Apple was not involved in this at all. In 1985, the first ARM CPU was released as a co-processor for the 6502 based BBC Micro Acorn developed for the BBC (probably the most advanced and fastest 6502 microcomputer of the time period).

However, even those were not the first RISC based computers, just the first commercial versions, which is why I said Acorn commercialized the RISC architecture with ARM. My response was directed to the OP’s:

<i>While I'm not taking away what apple has done with the arm platform - something that qualcomm has yet to catch up too, its clear that they want everyone to think apple is where the innovation has occurred not another company (arm)</i>

Though the original ARM design was inspired by the work at Berkley, Acorn was also influenced by the design of the 6502 that the ARM cpu was designed to replace.

Right, which was why I said innovation in the computer industry builds on the works of others, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t innovative.

Acorn also developed an ARM version of BBC Basic at the same time and a couple of years later launched the first desktop computer with an ARM CPU and ARM based operating system called Risc OS. Apple was not involved at this point, instead an Italian company Olivetti provided the financial support needed to launch ARM commercially.

Perhaps I should have been clearer. I never intended to claim Apple was there when the first ARM machines premiered, just that Apple has been involved with it and its technology development for a long time before the M series chips no referenced by ARM.

 

[theluggage]

I doubt we'll ever see an "ARM Inside" sticker, and Apple did make ARM change its name from Acorn RISC Machines to Advanced RISC Machines.

Pretty sure I remember people adorning their Archimedeses and Risc PCs with "ARM Powered" stickers back in the day, although those may have been fan-produced. "Intel Outside" was also popular

Speaking of which, I don't think anybody ever stuck an "Intel Inside" warning sticker on an Intel era Mac!

Anyway, since the Acorn name in the UK was popularly associated with computers in school, the name change probably made sense without Apple objections.

probably the most advanced and fastest 6502 microcomputer of the time period

Especially if you stuck an ARM second processor in it... Even a second 6502 made it pretty nippy...
I'm not sure if the ARM second processor for BBC was ever widely available, or just for developers.

Acorn *did* commercially release an ARM "accelerator" board for the PC though (yup, even the ARM2 left its Intel contemporaries choking on its fumes):

https://chrisacorns.computinghistory.org.uk/docs/Mags/PCW/PCW_Jan88_Springboard.pdf

 

[Mrbobb]

Unless one is been living in caves, must have realized by now Apple's in-house Mx chips have done something drastic to get double digits performance compared to Intel's. The ARM's article is actually a DUH. The RISC vs CICS battle is over. There is an amusing YT video on an ARM machine running on parasitic energy to show how efficient it is. My only question is, did Apple at any point contemplated getting an ARM license, rather than rolling out their own? Am actually glad Apple did their own SoC was a good call, so even now Microsoft has an ARM version of Windows, albeit a bit late to catch up.

 

[jlc1978]

My only question is, did Apple at any point contemplated getting an ARM license, rather than rolling out their own? Am actually glad Apple did their own SoC was a good call, so even now Microsoft has an ARM version of Windows, albeit a bit late to catch up.

Apple has an architecture license which lets them build their own chips based on the ARM architecture.

 

[IvyKing]

However, even those were not the first RISC based computers, just the first commercial versions, which is why I said Acorn commercialized the RISC architecture with ARM. My response was directed to the OP’s:

FWIW, the very first RISC machine was the CDC 6600. The CompSci folks at Berkeley were very familiar with the design of the CDC 6600, in part due to the campus computer center in the 70's having a CDC 6400 and LBL having a 6600 and 7600. The Berkeley RISC machine borrowed a lot of the concepts from the CDC 6000 and 7000 architecture.

 

[throAU]

Given that Apple was one of the original investors in Arm and has arguably done the most with the Arm processors across the variety of devices it makes sense for Arm to finally recognize that Apple has really brought Arm into the mainstream, even if most people don’t realize that mostly all of their devices use some version of the Arm architecture.

Probably the iPhone that brought ARM into the mainstream tbh

 

[throAU]

FWIW, the very first RISC machine was the CDC 6600. The CompSci folks at Berkeley were very familiar with the design of the CDC 6600, in part due to the campus computer center in the 70's having a CDC 6400 and LBL having a 6600 and 7600. The Berkeley RISC machine borrowed a lot of the concepts from the CDC 6000 and 7000 architecture.

Not really due to variable length instructions which completely negate one of true RISC's advantages in instruction decode.

 

[Bodhitree]

Well, ARM as a company has been quite involved in pushing Qualcomm and Microsoft’s partnership for ARM-architecture PCs, but it hasn’t been a great success. I heard ARM laptops are still a very small percentage of those sold. So ARM is basically propping up the perception of ARM computers as a mainstream device by now also including Apple’s ARM devices.

Qualcomm never really made clear what the performance or battery life benefits would be of an ARM chip, possibly because they weren’t making laptops themselves and couldn’t make promises as to the overall system performance.

 

[throAU]

Well, ARM as a company has been quite involved in pushing Qualcomm and Microsoft’s partnership for ARM-architecture PCs, but it hasn’t been a great success. I heard ARM laptops are still a very small percentage of those sold. So ARM is basically propping up the perception of ARM computers as a mainstream device by now also including Apple’s ARM devices.

ARM is certainly mainstream:

• every raspberry pi
• every apple watch
• every android watch
• every smartphone
• probably every digital camera
• close to every smart TV
• virtually every tablet that matters
• every desktop IP phone for the past 2 decades

People just don't realise because these devices typically aren't sold with the CPU as marketing front and centre.

 

[maflynn]

I heard ARM laptops are still a very small percentage of those sold.

There's a video out on why qualcomm failed with the snapdragon X, part of the issues is that Intel released Lunar Lake shortly after snapdragon x. There was (and is) little reason to get an ARM based laptop and deal with the issues when intel has something very similar.

Qualcomm never really made clear what the performance or battery life benefits would be of an ARM chip, possibly because they weren’t making laptops themselves and couldn’t make promises as to the overall system performance.

Actually one of the major issues with the failure was Qualcomm over promising the benefits and capabilities of the snapdragon x, and when reviewers and consumers started using it, they found performance issues, compatbility issues, inability to play games, etc.

 

[Bodhitree]

There's a video out on why qualcomm failed with the snapdragon X, part of the issues is that Intel released Lunar Lake shortly after snapdragon x. There was (and is) little reason to get an ARM based laptop and deal with the issues when intel has something very similar.

Actually one of the major issues with the failure was Qualcomm over promising the benefits and capabilities of the snapdragon x, and when reviewers and consumers started using it, they found performance issues, compatbility issues, inability to play games, etc.

Good video. Certainly you can see why a lot of people who play games on their laptop might go for an Intel Lunar Lake machine. But honest and appropriate marketing is a big challenge for most companies who just focus on creating as much hype as possible.

I think Qualcomm’s main chance now is to compete by lowering the price. They are not bad laptops, for a casual user who doesn’t game much.

 

[maflynn]

They are not bad laptops, for a casual user who doesn’t game much.

Its not just Qualcomm's fault, Microsoft has been trying to produce an ARM based version of windows since 2012 and each attempt has failed. The current version of arm windows is actually pretty good, but still suffers from compatibility issues.

 

[ADGrant]

ARM is certainly mainstream:

• every raspberry pi
• every apple watch
• every android watch
• every smartphone
• probably every digital camera
• close to every smart TV
• virtually every tablet that matters
• every desktop IP phone for the past 2 decades

People just don't realise because these devices typically aren't sold with the CPU as marketing front and centre.

I think ARM SoCs are in most home wireless routers too.

 

[jlc1978]

Its not just Qualcomm's fault, Microsoft has been trying to produce an ARM based version of windows since 2012 and each attempt has failed. The current version of arm windows is actually pretty good, but still suffers from compatibility issues.

I run it in Parallels, and I really can't tell the difference between the ARM and x86 versions with how I use Windows. It runs Office/Visio just fine, but those are MS' flagship apps and thus MS made sure they work. VSCode runs fine as well. I haven't tried any games but I suspect that is where compatibility issues arise.

I suspect WinARM is still an afterthought and MS' way of staying in the game in case ARM takes off; but they aren't willing to bet the farm on it. That at least makes running it in a VM resonable for a lot of use cases.

 

[ADGrant]

Probably the iPhone that brought ARM into the mainstream tbh

It was already established in the mobile space before the iPhone launched. For example Palm transitioned in 2002 from their original 68k architecture and wrote their own 68k emulator for ARM.

 

[IvyKing]

Not really due to variable length instructions which completely negate one of true RISC's advantages in instruction decode.

This is in respect to the CDC 6600...

The instructions came in just two lengths, 15 bit and 30 bit, where the difference was the 15 bit instructions had 9 bit set aside for addressing the two source and one destination register, where the 30 bit instructions were load immediate for either the A or B registers or target address for a jump. The opcode was in the first 6 bits of the instruction. The CDC 6000 series had 60 bit words, so the instructions had to be packed into that word.

The original claim for RISC was that a series of simple instructions could be executed faster than a single more complicated one - and that was pointed out explicitly in the class I took on assembly language at Berkeley in 1973. This is also detailed in Grisham's book on Assembly Language Programming for the CDC 6000 series.

 

[throAU]

There's a video out on why qualcomm failed with the snapdragon X, part of the issues is that Intel released Lunar Lake shortly after snapdragon x. There was (and is) little reason to get an ARM based laptop and deal with the issues when intel has something very similar.

Actually one of the major issues with the failure was Qualcomm over promising the benefits and capabilities of the snapdragon x, and when reviewers and consumers started using it, they found performance issues, compatbility issues, inability to play games, etc.

Part of it is also Microsoft continually treating ARM as a second class citizen.

Windows RSAT Admin tools for example aren’t available on arm.

That and mandatory secure boot being enabled and the machine effectively being locked to windows.

 

[throAU]

I think ARM SoCs are in most home wireless routers too.

Yup. And soho firewalls