I'm sure that you could virtualize a ARM processor-- but x86 would probably be right out.
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.
If Mac went ARM tomorrow, would you jump?
- Thread starter russofris
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You're possibly right about this, but I'm not looking to buy the future of computing. I'm looking to buy the future of me recording music. Ken is looking for the future of photo-montages. Martin is looking for the future of film editing.
The vast vast majority of the market is normal consumers and users and their priorities are along the lines of:
"does it work to get done what I want"
"is it secure and easy to use?"
This forum would have you believe it's a huge problem/mistake if the Mac gets locked down and put into the "walled garden".
I won't like it if it happens.
In fact I may even switch back to Windows.
...but it is possible that it might actually be a great business/marketing/future move for Apple to address the priorities of the vast majority of their customers.
It was asked what problems ARM would solve. Here's two:
1: Lower TDP = I can use it in the same room that I have my U87 set up in without the fear of the fan kicking on high-speed and ruining a vocal/acoustic-guitar track. As-Is, I have to keep the iMac in a control room and use an iPad as a transport/control surface. (I've tried fan control software without success)
2: It would free the Mac from Intel's lackluster release cycle, inherited security risks, production bottlenecks, and other legacies.
1: Lower TDP = I can use it in the same room that I have my U87 set up in without the fear of the fan kicking on high-speed and ruining a vocal/acoustic-guitar track. As-Is, I have to keep the iMac in a control room and use an iPad as a transport/control surface. (I've tried fan control software without success)
2: It would free the Mac from Intel's lackluster release cycle, inherited security risks, production bottlenecks, and other legacies.
That's a HUGE draw for Apple, guaranteed.
They've been burned by Intel and forced to change release schedules multiple times already.
Are there intel chips that you'd like to see in a mac, but won't because apple has other interests?
where are the hex core imacs?
The short answer is that no, I wouldn't upgrade my Mac simply because a new processor architecture were released. If anything, that would be even more reason to hold off on an upgrade for a bit longer, just to let the dust settle.
The longer answer is that, in the long run, it would influence whether I stay with Macs or not. I don't doubt that Apple could do some interesting things with their mobile computers by changing to ARM, but the desktops are less clear to me. I also don't buy the idea that Apple has been neglecting the Mac lineup because of Intel. I'm sure Intel has made things a bit more difficult for Apple, but I wouldn't be among those who inevitably cheer the idea of Apple returning focus to the Macs with an architecture change.
If the processing power were the same or greater that's all good and fine, but what does this mean for software availability? The discussion about third-party software was all good and fine but many of us are using professional software from companies that also cater to Windows. The Mac market share is probably fairly minimal for many of them; how many would continue Mac support on an entirely new architecture? I think a lot of people may be taking for granted just how much software became available on Macs when the transition to x86 occurred. I don't buy that distribution has become easier, otherwise Microsoft wouldn't have had to dump their ARM-based Surface a few years ago, and they'd probably be offering an ARM-based model now.
Someone earlier already said it best: Apple always charged high costs for their stuff, but it was justifiable. Now they're allowing their hardware to become outdated while maintaining the same pricing structure, which is quickly becoming laughable. If this architecture change causes pain on the software side and doesn't make a really good case for the user, I'm out. And once the computer is running Windows only, the benefit of having all of the other Apple products - iPhone, iPad, Watch, TV - becomes greatly diminished, and I might start looking elsewhere when those products need upgrades, too. I like my Macs and I like the overall Apple product experience, so I don't look forward to the possibility of going back to Windows... but Apple had better make this decision very, very carefully.
The longer answer is that, in the long run, it would influence whether I stay with Macs or not. I don't doubt that Apple could do some interesting things with their mobile computers by changing to ARM, but the desktops are less clear to me. I also don't buy the idea that Apple has been neglecting the Mac lineup because of Intel. I'm sure Intel has made things a bit more difficult for Apple, but I wouldn't be among those who inevitably cheer the idea of Apple returning focus to the Macs with an architecture change.
If the processing power were the same or greater that's all good and fine, but what does this mean for software availability? The discussion about third-party software was all good and fine but many of us are using professional software from companies that also cater to Windows. The Mac market share is probably fairly minimal for many of them; how many would continue Mac support on an entirely new architecture? I think a lot of people may be taking for granted just how much software became available on Macs when the transition to x86 occurred. I don't buy that distribution has become easier, otherwise Microsoft wouldn't have had to dump their ARM-based Surface a few years ago, and they'd probably be offering an ARM-based model now.
Someone earlier already said it best: Apple always charged high costs for their stuff, but it was justifiable. Now they're allowing their hardware to become outdated while maintaining the same pricing structure, which is quickly becoming laughable. If this architecture change causes pain on the software side and doesn't make a really good case for the user, I'm out. And once the computer is running Windows only, the benefit of having all of the other Apple products - iPhone, iPad, Watch, TV - becomes greatly diminished, and I might start looking elsewhere when those products need upgrades, too. I like my Macs and I like the overall Apple product experience, so I don't look forward to the possibility of going back to Windows... but Apple had better make this decision very, very carefully.
If their ARM processor is used similar to how it is in the iMac Pro I would have no issue. If they move from x86 I will simply not buy another Apple Mac product, simple as that. People love to chime in that the migration from Power to x86 was easy,. yes and no, it all depended on what you wanted to run. The difference being that it was accepted people wanted x86 compatibility because all the doors it opened.
plus I really don't want to end up in a situation where the app store is the gateway to apps/programs I want. because you know damn well they will go there all while hiding behind protecting their customers.
the game market is already thin for Mac, going ARM would me the chance of a PC title coming to Mac being about nil. Really don't like the idea that my options would effectively be reduced to Candy Crush type crap. PC gamers make fun of Mac already... can you imagine? hell I would join them
plus I really don't want to end up in a situation where the app store is the gateway to apps/programs I want. because you know damn well they will go there all while hiding behind protecting their customers.
the game market is already thin for Mac, going ARM would me the chance of a PC title coming to Mac being about nil. Really don't like the idea that my options would effectively be reduced to Candy Crush type crap. PC gamers make fun of Mac already... can you imagine? hell I would join them
No, my 2015 iMac is a great machine, though its not getting used as much as it used too. I have for a variety of reasons chose not use a MBP for my portability needs, but rather use a Thinkpad. If Apple chose to abandon the intel platform for desktops, then it would be an easy decision to find PC that would work for me.
If Apple does embrace ARM, will they do what MS has done, and is trying to do now?
Low end, ARM, but high end still use Intel? If Apple did that, would that confuse and muddy things?
If Apple does embrace ARM, will they do what MS has done, and is trying to do now?
Low end, ARM, but high end still use Intel? If Apple did that, would that confuse and muddy things?
No, and to be honest I find it hard sometimes to continue with Apple period.
I think I have seen you post in a couple other areas that you use a Windows laptop for what you do. Obviously you are a moderator for these forums, and I imagine that is a paid position. What else do you do that would require an x86 platform as opposed to ARM?
Edit: I only mention the Windows laptop as it makes me think you are software agnostic, which means perhaps you deal in web editing more often than not, which would not be impacted by ARM.
Left Apple last year... at least on the computing platform. I never had an issue with the Apple tax because I loved the materials and premium feel. Now everyone else has caught up with externals and as usual, everyone else continues to offer better internal hardware for a much lower price tag. Apple had a good run, but they have to adapt - quickly.
Moderators and Administrators on MacRumors are volunteers not paid staff.
Adobe products, such as Lightoom, Oracle database tools, enterprise applications specific to my job, remote access tools such as gotomypc, running VMs, windows specific apps
Granted there are some iOS versions of the software I use, but for the most part those are gimped compared to the full version, but there are other apps that I use that require intel and even windows.
It depends on a lot of things...
What would the performance be like when freed of the thermal requirements of mobile? I don’t expect it will be a mobile chip in a desktop.
Will in be cheaper? Intel chips are expensive.
Will it allow new types of Mac? They could provide a new low end Mac that uses an iPhone sized logic board. Take away the battery and screen of an iPhone and it might be possible to have everything inside an HDMI dongle.
What would the performance be like when freed of the thermal requirements of mobile? I don’t expect it will be a mobile chip in a desktop.
Will in be cheaper? Intel chips are expensive.
Will it allow new types of Mac? They could provide a new low end Mac that uses an iPhone sized logic board. Take away the battery and screen of an iPhone and it might be possible to have everything inside an HDMI dongle.
Last edited:
Would I?
Depends on so many factors.
Software developers whose products I use to earn my daily bread: Are they on board? Or do I have to make do with a slower "Rosetta style" setup…
Costs of the new Macs. Not just hardware, but software costs switching over.
If no compelling reasons are found I'll stick with what I have and when after a few years things get slow and upgradeable re-assess my options.
A switch to whatever Windows offers is then a possibility.
This. This. This.
I have to wonder about the people who would jump on to ARM pronto. Do you actually use your Mac for work?
This question, like it or not, essentially boils down to one thing:
Do you trust Apple's management to make the right decisions about what a mac should be?
ARM is a pretty versatile chip architecture. If Apple wanted to, they could produce a chip that was at least competitive with Xeons (in some markets.) There are 32 core ARM chips (thunderX2) being made today for use with servers. Now, granted, these chips are being sold to users who really care about how many "transactions" they can process per server farm, with power availability being the deciding factor.
I'm not that sort of customer. I have an iMac. I run a semi eccentric mix of windows and macos software on one computer, and it's my only computer for three plus years. When it breaks, or it becomes obsolete, I'll look at the limitations I've encountered and buy a new computer that stands a good chance of not becoming obsolete immediately.
Theoretically, Apple could design a custom ARM chip that would be a real beast at numerical processing. Would they though? Or would they be content with something that sips power, but has less grunt than the latest AMD Ryzen and Intel Desktop chips?
Do you trust Apple's management to make the right decisions about what a mac should be?
ARM is a pretty versatile chip architecture. If Apple wanted to, they could produce a chip that was at least competitive with Xeons (in some markets.) There are 32 core ARM chips (thunderX2) being made today for use with servers. Now, granted, these chips are being sold to users who really care about how many "transactions" they can process per server farm, with power availability being the deciding factor.
I'm not that sort of customer. I have an iMac. I run a semi eccentric mix of windows and macos software on one computer, and it's my only computer for three plus years. When it breaks, or it becomes obsolete, I'll look at the limitations I've encountered and buy a new computer that stands a good chance of not becoming obsolete immediately.
Theoretically, Apple could design a custom ARM chip that would be a real beast at numerical processing. Would they though? Or would they be content with something that sips power, but has less grunt than the latest AMD Ryzen and Intel Desktop chips?
This is a good question. In the past I did, and it was exciting. Now, much more than not, it seems like they're allowing virtually all of their Mac lines to languish. They're also making strange decisions, such as the "trash can" Mac Pro that forced themselves into a thermal corner, and soldering components on the Mac Mini seemingly without any major design changes to justify that behavior. Systems like the iMac are also thermally constrained, all because they're insisting on going as thin and light as possible; they could possibly do a lot more if they'd change the design and allow for even a small amount of bulk. For their portable line the focus on thin and light makes complete sense, but when they're trying to create a system to get work done it starts to look silly. Doubly so when they haven't redesigned the thing in about seven years, the competition has largely caught up, and the look (thick bezels in particular) becomes dated.
I give Apple credit for regularly updating and working on macOS. But they're not giving the Mac line the attention I'd think it should have, and while I understand that they're not a charity, the lack of attention (and foresight - the Mac Pro saga is a complete embarrassment) has been really surprising for a company with the financial resources that they have. Go back to the days of Tiger, Leopard, and even Snow Leopard, and maybe I would have felt more confidence about Apple preforming another architecture change. Right now, they've lost too much trust to have me blindly sign on to something that big.
ledgem, i was laptop shopping yesterday, the Dell Xps Outperformed the Macbook pro by faster internets responce, comfortable typing, better screen image and sturdiness were the dell seemed more secure on desk resistng movement. The dell can be modified upgraded inside. I did not get the chance to video edit the new termintator movie on either laptop, but i was more impressed with the Dell, which i never thought possible since my love of macs since 1999.
What happened to mac?
What happened to mac?
for me, I was impressed by the ThinkPad, so much so, I'm now using that instead of the MBP.
Design choices that favored thinness over expandability, and had an unforeseen issue with thermal throttling (at least in the MBP's case).
Dell has the worst sales reps i was warned, but impressive laptop tho. I need to decide on that or a mbpro 2012 now that some important linux apps are available for macs now.
good luck getting 3rd party plugin developers to port to ARM. a lot of those companies barely skirt by as it is.
Consiering the direction Apple's going with their Macs, it will take considerable time for me to have a renewed assurance with their Arm Mac offerings.
Apple has stopped offering a true tool & professional workstation Mac. And I don't think Apple's aiming an Arm centric Mac to be a workstation machine.
If their end result is more like gimped iPad like Mac, then I'm done with Apple computer. (actually that's one of the reason I purchased '18 15" MBP because I kinda thought this was going to be the last intel Mac.)
Apple has stopped offering a true tool & professional workstation Mac. And I don't think Apple's aiming an Arm centric Mac to be a workstation machine.
If their end result is more like gimped iPad like Mac, then I'm done with Apple computer. (actually that's one of the reason I purchased '18 15" MBP because I kinda thought this was going to be the last intel Mac.)