Is Apple going to ARM to simply be different?

[theorist9]

Not many know this, but Apple is in fact owned by MacRumors. MacRumors made a corporate decision to have Apple switch to AS to provoke discussion and controversy, thus increasing traffic to its site.

Other consequential MacRumors decisions include telling Steve Jobs to say "you're holding it wrong", forcing Apple to switch to the butterfly keyboard, removing USB-A ports from the MacBook Pro, and directing Apple to make the iPhone 6 "bendable".

 

[vigilant]

No idea why they still run the 8th gen Intel on these things. Dell and everyone SMALLER can update yearly with new products but Apple is two years old on the cpu. Half of me thinks they’re going ARM to eliminate comparisons. Every Gen is the latest even if it’s a couple years old.

I’ll answer this very honestly.

Intel has been a big issue, and not just for Apple. The problems that came as a result of Skylake were horrible, and I’ve heard stories about Intel chips with wattage of 45w actually pulling over 100w when running.

Intel‘s integrated GPUs aren’t good.

We are looking at multiple years of architecture promises, that end up coming multiple years late, and with tons of bugs. It isn’t just one single thing.

Intel goes through these things. They get taken out by the woodshed, and then starts improving. Pentium IV was there previous trip to the woodshed. We are looking at probably their longest running trip right now.

I completely hear you on your concern, but if the choice is a roadmap they can’t trust, or one they can, then I think they are making the right decision.

Trust me, this situation sucks for a lot of reasons. It’s seriously funny to me that Intel was so far behind on having ML accelerated functions. My watch has that as an expected Platform feature.

 

[vigilant]

Not many know this, but Apple is in fact owned by MacRumors. MacRumors made a corporate decision to have Apple switch to AS to provoke discussion and controversy, thus increasing traffic to its site.

Other consequential MacRumors decisions include telling Steve Jobs to say "you're holding it wrong", forcing Apple to switch to the butterfly keyboard, removing USB-A ports from the MacBook Pro, and directing Apple to make the iPhone 6 "bendable".

Dude, you weren’t suppose to tell that. Now the shell game is over. I hope you didn’t also tell him that Macrumors is being ran by Q-anon

 

[Marlon DLTH :)]

I am sure they can make a Silicon Mac that can surf the internet and check email. Can they make a Silicon Mac that can render 4K video as well as my Mac mini with an eGPU? I'll believe it when I see it.

Developers with the DTK, which is running the A12Z (a 2018 iPad chip), have seen incredible results.

Look at these.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1288658469827104769

Benchmarks are similar to the 13" MacBook Pro.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1277664748805304321

Now imagine what they can do for a desktop. Craig said: "It gives you a sense of what our silicon team can do when they are not even trying.”

 

[ian87w]

No idea why they still run the 8th gen Intel on these things. Dell and everyone SMALLER can update yearly with new products but Apple is two years old on the cpu. Half of me thinks they’re going ARM to eliminate comparisons. Every Gen is the latest even if it’s a couple years old.

Companies like Dell have many retail models still on the older gen intel chips. Plus, although you can order the latest models, sometimes your order won't ship until 3 to 4 weeks later. In my country, one of the largest OEMs like Asus are still using 8th/9th gen intel chips, with only few OEMs like HP who has 10th gen on their most premium (lesser volume) models.

Apple is a bit more strict on their inventory, and they don't like suppliers (eg intel) who simply cannot deliver the contracted volume on time.

Just like any businesses, vertical integration is preferred as it allows better control of your own supply chain and products. This is what Apple doing by doing their own chips. It gives them many benefits, including better control, better optimization, better progression forward, and the side effect, for better or worse, is like you said, elimination of comparison, and in essence Apple macs will have a more uniqueness on the market. It's all business 101.

 

[the8thark]

Developers with the DTK, which is running the A12Z (a 2018 iPad chip), have seen incredible results.

Assume the 1st gen retail AS Macs are a step above the DTK, that is huge news. Honestly I never thought the A series was that capable. Looks like I was wrong.

Also it looks like Intel are exploring asymeterical core CPUs as well now.

https://software.intel.com/sites/default/files/bc/7a/Gillespie_hetero-multicore_v2.rh_.FINAL_.pdf

That's good but the downside is who knows if Intel will meet their deadlines on them. Also Intel seems ot be stuck on the 10nm processes where others like Apple are at 7nm now and are exploring 5nm.

 

[leman]

Also it looks like Intel are exploring asymeterical core CPUs as well now.

https://software.intel.com/sites/default/files/bc/7a/Gillespie_hetero-multicore_v2.rh_.FINAL_.pdf

That's good but the downside is who knows if Intel will meet their deadlines on them. Also Intel seems ot be stuck on the 10nm processes where others like Apple are at 7nm now and are exploring 5nm.

They have released their first asymmetric CPUs (Lakefield) recently. In short: it's disappointing.

Edit: one issue with asymmetric processing is that it has to be properly supported by the OS and the software. Especially the software needs to use indicative power and task priority assertions to help the OS do it's job. These designs work very well for ARM because they have their roots in mobile applications. Power consumption is important and developers pay attention to it. Apple has been carefully preparing macOS to play well with asymmetric designs for years and years, offering power assertion APIs and encouraging developers to use them. I just don't see this working in the Windows world, where most apps assume that they have exclusive access to everything and just try to grab as much CPU time as they can get. It will take a long while for software on Windows to catch up, if it ever will.

 

[Ledgem]

@vigilant summed it up pretty well, I think: Intel has had product delays, and if rumors are to be believed, Apple has had to delay product refreshes because Intel didn't have what they wanted in time. I'd also have to wonder if Apple's design desires have been limited by Intel's chips. Apple's desire is for energy-efficient, cooler chips, while Intel still harbors the philosophy of pushing chips to be faster by clock rate, which is more power-hungry and generates more heat.

The only puzzle to me is why Apple never went over to AMD for processors. Intel's processors generally have the ultimate performance, but AMD seems to design processors with a philosophy that aligns closer to Apple's. Performance doesn't fall far behind Intel, either. AMD, being the underdog, also seems more willing to work with large customers for custom design needs, given that they're supplying the processors for many gaming consoles now.

Otherwise, Apple's decision to switch to ARM makes sense. The timing is right: iOS has captured enough developer attention that many iOS apps should be fairly easy to extend and port for a Mac version, which will make the pain of transitioning a bit easier. Apple's own design team is dominating in the mobile space, and if the comparative benchmarks end up holding true, they're about to dominate in the desktop space, as well. There will be cost savings, truly customizable design to Apple's other product vision, and... who knows? We've seen what Apple did with the auxiliary T2 chip; if they're fully designing their own stuff, maybe they'll be able to bring in even more functionality that goes beyond what we've traditionally regarded as the role for a computer.

Make no mistake: I don't like this transition. I came into the Mac world shortly after they transitioned to x86, and I am application-driven. If the programs I use most heavily come over to ARM then I'll be along for the ride; if not, I'll have to seriously consider going back to Windows, which will also break some of the "magic" of having other products in Apple's ecosystem. But then, Apple probably knows that this seems less likely to happen, too. My desktop used to be the #1 most-used electronic device for me, and everything else was secondary. These days, largely because I am busier with other areas of my life, the portable iOS devices get more overall screen time than my computer. The computer is still needed to "heavy lifting" applications, and overall I find it easier to work on, but it's no longer my central electronic device.

 

[leman]

Apple's desire is for energy-efficient, cooler chips, while Intel still harbors the philosophy of pushing chips to be faster by clock rate, which is more power-hungry and generates more heat.

I think that Apple is in fact very performance oriented, aggressively so. They just genuinely have a more efficient micro-architecture. It doesn’t just mean lower power. It means better peak performance.

AMD made a comeback by building a more energy-efficient architecture than Intel, with better yields. This allows them to ship a 15-30watt octa-core CPU, clocked low enough to have excellent performance in multi-threaded workloads.

But Apple cares about single-threaded performance - a lot. This is an area where x86 has reached a plateau some time ago. My current i9 is barely any faster in single-core workloads than my 2016 machine - and much of the performance difference comes from faster RAM. Ice Lake also didn’t bring much improvement here. There is hope that Apple can break this barrier, which will be very important for performanc-oriented users.

 

[vigilant]

@vigilant summed it up pretty well, I think: Intel has had product delays, and if rumors are to be believed, Apple has had to delay product refreshes because Intel didn't have what they wanted in time. I'd also have to wonder if Apple's design desires have been limited by Intel's chips. Apple's desire is for energy-efficient, cooler chips, while Intel still harbors the philosophy of pushing chips to be faster by clock rate, which is more power-hungry and generates more heat.

The only puzzle to me is why Apple never went over to AMD for processors. Intel's processors generally have the ultimate performance, but AMD seems to design processors with a philosophy that aligns closer to Apple's. Performance doesn't fall far behind Intel, either. AMD, being the underdog, also seems more willing to work with large customers for custom design needs, given that they're supplying the processors for many gaming consoles now.

Otherwise, Apple's decision to switch to ARM makes sense. The timing is right: iOS has captured enough developer attention that many iOS apps should be fairly easy to extend and port for a Mac version, which will make the pain of transitioning a bit easier. Apple's own design team is dominating in the mobile space, and if the comparative benchmarks end up holding true, they're about to dominate in the desktop space, as well. There will be cost savings, truly customizable design to Apple's other product vision, and... who knows? We've seen what Apple did with the auxiliary T2 chip; if they're fully designing their own stuff, maybe they'll be able to bring in even more functionality that goes beyond what we've traditionally regarded as the role for a computer.

Make no mistake: I don't like this transition. I came into the Mac world shortly after they transitioned to x86, and I am application-driven. If the programs I use most heavily come over to ARM then I'll be along for the ride; if not, I'll have to seriously consider going back to Windows, which will also break some of the "magic" of having other products in Apple's ecosystem. But then, Apple probably knows that this seems less likely to happen, too. My desktop used to be the #1 most-used electronic device for me, and everything else was secondary. These days, largely because I am busier with other areas of my life, the portable iOS devices get more overall screen time than my computer. The computer is still needed to "heavy lifting" applications, and overall I find it easier to work on, but it's no longer my central electronic device.

I appreciate the mention, wanted to hit on a couple things you said.

The support for AMD I think comes down to 2 things.
1. Apple is highly invested in Thunderbolt, which they codeveloped with Intel.

2. Until recently, I believe while AMD may have had competitive chips from a performance standpoint, I’ve heard enough things around bugs that lead me to believe they aren’t any less buggy compared to Intel.

Which applications do you rely on? I ask because I’ve been through 2 big transitions with Apple and I can’t really name an application that didn’t make the move.

 

[Tech198]

They want to control the amount of heat generated from the processor and steady upgrades! Heck even Hard core gamers are dumping Intel and moved on to AMD Chips! Intel is it’s own worst enemy at this time!

All companies wanna do that (control heat that is).

Mac min's could have up the processor from 8th gen... So don't believe ts due to 'not much of an increase' where you could have say the same about any 8th gen movement.

Apple just choose to storage bump. for this reason i reckon, otherwise it would not have bee singled out. It also wouldn't have made sese to get new CPU for Mac this year if they are gonna have to re-relase it anyway with silicon shorty after

 

[dmccloud]

I appreciate the mention, wanted to hit on a couple things you said.

The support for AMD I think comes down to 2 things.
1. Apple is highly invested in Thunderbolt, which they codeveloped with Intel.

2. Until recently, I believe while AMD may have had competitive chips from a performance standpoint, I’ve heard enough things around bugs that lead me to believe they aren’t any less buggy compared to Intel.

Which applications do you rely on? I ask because I’ve been through 2 big transitions with Apple and I can’t really name an application that didn’t make the move.

Thunderbolt 3 is an open standard though (i.e. no royalties or fees to license it), and AMD has been integrating it into their chipsets for at least two years now. The bigger obstacle regarding AMD has been CPU size and heat generation, both of which would have required Apple to make their laptops heavier and possibly thicker. Go to a Best Buy and compare the 13" Dell Inspiron with the Core i5 to the 13" Inspiron running the Ryzen 5 processor. While they look to be the same size, the Ryzen model is noticeably heavier and will be warmer to the touch.

 

[Ledgem]

I think that Apple is in fact very performance oriented, aggressively so. They just genuinely have a more efficient micro-architecture. It doesn’t just mean lower power. It means better peak performance.

I agree that their own processor designs are more efficiency, but I don't agree about their degree of being performance-oriented. In many of their product designs you can see that they sacrifice performance for product design aesthetics. People have shown that for at least some builds (usually the higher-end ones) the Mac mini and the iMac are unable to achieve or maintain the highest levels of performance expected from the processors that they contain, and the reason is attributed to the chassis and limitations on cooling. If Apple were truly placing performance as their #1 metric then they would be designing the chassis around the internals, and not the other way around. After all, these are desktop systems - not to say that smaller, slimmer designs aren't appreciated, but it's nowhere near as critical as with a laptop system. Apple persisted, anyway.

Using their own, more efficient processors should make this less of an issue. But as I said, I don't think they're choosing to go with their own solution purely because of performance. That the performance of their chips has achieved parity with x86 solutions makes it viable now, but I suspect it's more the thermal efficiency that they're primarily driven by, in their obsession with making hardware that is thinner and smaller. If they can truly outperform Intel's and AMD's offerings then it will make things very interesting... and at that point it won't really matter what their motivation was, as it will be a win all around.

Which applications do you rely on? I ask because I’ve been through 2 big transitions with Apple and I can’t really name an application that didn’t make the move.

Would have said Dragon, but Nuance did us the "favor" of discontinuing Mac support a year or two ago, so that's one less application.

Citrix is critical - I'm guessing that'll come along, though, as its functions are fairly simple. I would not be surprised if an ARM-based version already exists for some other operating system.

Capture One Pro (photography application) is critical, and it's unclear if that will be coming along.

Mixed feelings about virtualization apps like Parallels and VMWare Fusion. I used to use them heavily, but these days it's more like a handful of times per year. I know it's currently under debate as to whether we'll be able to virtualize x86-based operating systems.

I've shifted to a number of Apple apps and apps from smaller developers who started their apps with Mac versions (such as 1Password), and since many of those have iOS versions as well, I'm sure they'll make the transition.

 

[Polly Mercocet]

Citrix is critical - I'm guessing that'll come along, though, as its functions are fairly simple. I would not be surprised if an ARM-based version already exists for some other operating system.

You can already get Citrix on the iPad so I doubt it will be difficult for them to create a macOS port for AS.

I know it's currently under debate as to whether we'll be able to virtualize x86-based operating systems.

You would have to emulate them if the OS in question lacks an ARM build, but it should be possible in either case. Emulation would of course be slower and more power sucking. But you can run Linux and Windows on ARM so it should be possible to virtualise them.

 

[leman]

I agree that their own processor designs are more efficiency, but I don't agree about their degree of being performance-oriented. In many of their product designs you can see that they sacrifice performance for product design aesthetics.

I am afraid that we are at a danger of conflating multiple things. When I was said that Apple being performance-oriented, I was primarily referring to the Apple Silicon. It leads any other mobile offerings by a wide margin, coming very close to desktop PC chips.

Even on the computer side, Apple has been traditionally offering fastest consumer CPUs available on the market. They stayed with 30W CPUs for their 13" Pro line when everyone else moved to 15W CPUs.

People have shown that for at least some builds (usually the higher-end ones) the Mac mini and the iMac are unable to achieve or maintain the highest levels of performance expected from the processors that they contain, and the reason is attributed to the chassis and limitations on cooling. If Apple were truly placing performance as their #1 metric then they would be designing the chassis around the internals, and not the other way around. After all, these are desktop systems - not to say that smaller, slimmer designs aren't appreciated, but it's nowhere near as critical as with a laptop system. Apple persisted, anyway.

I agree that Mac mini is not a performance-oriented design. It's a basic office computer and it usually lags in terms of hardware upgrades. Both the mini and the iMac won't have the cooling of larger tower PCs, which will limit the CPU's ability to opportunistically overclock. There are obviously design tradeoffs here. Apple usually designs their PC hardware over pre-determined power brackets, trying to squeeze as much performance as they can from a certain bracket, but not moving beyond it.

Using their own, more efficient processors should make this less of an issue. But as I said, I don't think they're choosing to go with their own solution purely because of performance. That the performance of their chips has achieved parity with x86 solutions makes it viable now, but I suspect it's more the thermal efficiency that they're primarily driven by, in their obsession with making hardware that is thinner and smaller. If they can truly outperform Intel's and AMD's offerings then it will make things very interesting... and at that point it won't really matter what their motivation was, as it will be a win all around.

If they cannot outperform the x86 PC, move to Apple Silicon is pointless. There is certain effort involved in moving between platforms and users need reasons to commit to it. Offering same level of performance in a cooler, quieter package will be an attractive proposition for the home user, but I am afraid this would kill the higher-end professional Mac. Which will quickly lead to the demise of the Mac platform as such. They have to offer something for people who need more. Like i9-level performance in the 13" chassis (which they should be able to deliver within their dedicated 30 watts).

 

[JMacHack]

@vigilant
The only puzzle to me is why Apple never went over to AMD for processors. Intel's processors generally have the ultimate performance, but AMD seems to design processors with a philosophy that aligns closer to Apple's. Performance doesn't fall far behind Intel, either. AMD, being the underdog, also seems more willing to work with large customers for custom design needs, given that they're supplying the processors for many gaming consoles now.

Well, according to rumors, Apple made the decision that they were going to switch to their own processors in 2015, well before Ryzen's release in 2017.

Otherwise, Apple's decision to switch to ARM makes sense. The timing is right: iOS has captured enough developer attention that many iOS apps should be fairly easy to extend and port for a Mac version, which will make the pain of transitioning a bit easier. Apple's own design team is dominating in the mobile space, and if the comparative benchmarks end up holding true, they're about to dominate in the desktop space, as well. There will be cost savings, truly customizable design to Apple's other product vision, and... who knows? We've seen what Apple did with the auxiliary T2 chip; if they're fully designing their own stuff, maybe they'll be able to bring in even more functionality that goes beyond what we've traditionally regarded as the role for a computer.

Make no mistake: I don't like this transition. I came into the Mac world shortly after they transitioned to x86, and I am application-driven. If the programs I use most heavily come over to ARM then I'll be along for the ride; if not, I'll have to seriously consider going back to Windows, which will also break some of the "magic" of having other products in Apple's ecosystem. But then, Apple probably knows that this seems less likely to happen, too. My desktop used to be the #1 most-used electronic device for me, and everything else was secondary. These days, largely because I am busier with other areas of my life, the portable iOS devices get more overall screen time than my computer. The computer is still needed to "heavy lifting" applications, and overall I find it easier to work on, but it's no longer my central electronic device.

I think we'll be pleasantly surprised. I had the same fears before the keynote, and during the keynote they were focusing on allaying those fears. They showed most of the apps I use for work running natively anyway.

I think that if Apple pulls this off we're going to see a new paradigm shift in desktop and laptop computers. I think that if and when this happens, it will allow other ARM (and RISC-V!) chipmakers to get their foot in the door to desktop processing, and maybe start competing directly with the x86 makers.

 

[Krevnik]

I think that if Apple pulls this off we're going to see a new paradigm shift in desktop and laptop computers. I think that if and when this happens, it will allow other ARM (and RISC-V!) chipmakers to get their foot in the door to desktop processing, and maybe start competing directly with the x86 makers.

Depends on Microsoft when talking about consumer PCs at least. If Microsoft is willing to adopt this new architecture and make it easy for players to make hardware built on it, maybe. So far, Windows on ARM has been... not exactly well supported. Considering one reason Windows is still so popular is legacy app support, I’m not sure even Microsoft can really push such a change based on their tepid offerings to date.

Otherwise we’re basically hoping for something like the Chromebook to effectively push Microsoft to the margins and displace Windows entirely. And again, with legacy app support being a thing, it’s not surprising that it’s hard to display Windows.

 

[vigilant]

Thunderbolt 3 is an open standard though (i.e. no royalties or fees to license it), and AMD has been integrating it into their chipsets for at least two years now. The bigger obstacle regarding AMD has been CPU size and heat generation, both of which would have required Apple to make their laptops heavier and possibly thicker. Go to a Best Buy and compare the 13" Dell Inspiron with the Core i5 to the 13" Inspiron running the Ryzen 5 processor. While they look to be the same size, the Ryzen model is noticeably heavier and will be warmer to the touch.

100% of the time when not on lock down I absolutely would. The wife would laugh at me as I examined the piss-poor (can I say that?) build quality of PCs.

While I don't doubt you, I'm surprised. I was under the impression that AMD was hitting manufacturing process, so I'd expect it to run cooler. I'm curious what we'd find if we looked at take-a-parts between the two? I've heard very good things about the Surface Laptop, and if my wife's work would let me, I'd buy one for her. I'll win that battle eventually.

Yes, Thunderbolt is open, and I'm happy to be wrong on this, but it's my understanding because AMD chipsets don't have Thunderbolt support built in, another controller needs to be added.

Frankly, I follow the PC stuff in broad strokes. I review chip design and architecture as an enthusiast.

Just to hit on something, that I think is the most interesting about Apple could end up doing that would be a real game changer.

Looking back, at when I think the iMac 5k was being released, it may have been the 4K, I've slept since then, Apple described a specialized timing controller that allowed the display to work when HDMI just couldn't handle the resolution. Spring forward we see Apple using their own specialized fixed purpose hardware for security, HEVC, hardware accelerated ssd encryption, and many many more.

Looking back, I don't think I can name another company that has been as proactive to adopt and accelerate specialized hardware blocks as fast, and provide relatively easy to implement functions to the customers. Again, I focus on Apple a ton, and I'm really excited to be wrong. I do know Qualcomm and Nvidia on their SOCs have been fairly competitive. Largely speaking, Intel has been very slow to do these things.

Part of what I LOVE about what Apple is doing, is it leads the way for them to closely marry hardware and software optimization to meet new use cases rapidly. If they have an idea that may have a reference design by ARM? Sure use off the shelf design for the first run. Make small iterations the next generation, then design your own.

We can deal with the arguments of if Apple used a reference design if they actually did it. Everything starts somewhere. If you want to have that argument, sure, lets do it. I'd rather use a reference design for something fixed purpose today, and evolve it, rather than waiting how long to get Intel to add it? I'm pretty sure that Intel just recently started offering AI/ML features within the last year. Thats cute. My watch is more aware of AI/ML than my $2,500 laptop.

Intel's biggest crutch is there liability of having to make chips that for "reasons" need to run Windows 3.1 applications fine. Microsoft also has this handicap. I do love Microsoft, even if they can't make an operating system that I can't use daily.

Let's make no mistake. Whether it's AMD or Intel, or Microsoft, I'm happy to have arguments about various different compromises that have been collecting. Sure, we can talk about one off tools that have been abandoned, but the honest answer is in a day where my thermostat gets regular updates from the inter webs, sometimes there's things that need to be refactored.

x86 will live in Datacenters and Cloud the same way old IBM systems are seen today.

It requires repeating, lets stop the arguments of RISC over CISC. Lets stop the arguments of x86 vs ARM. It requires repeating, Intel saw x86 as a big enough liability that they created Itanium, that everyone else called the Itanic. Everyone knows about the legacy issues.

Let the big businesses figure out their data centers, as everyone is moving to the Cloud. It's not your problem.

If we can get predictable, stable, and consistent chipsets that work, that's a HUGE win. We could argue about this stuff all day. What we should be arguing about is which platform after ARM that Apple will move us to. Because they run the entire stack in two years, the transition should be much cleaner.

 

[Kostask]

The next step up from ARM ISA based SoCs is to run Swift natively. They are far from it, but more than one Apple beat type reporter has stated that is the next transition. And when I say Swift natively, I mean Swift will be the instruciton set, nothing below it.

 

[theadder]

The next step up from ARM ISA based SoCs is to run Swift natively. They are far from it, but more than one Apple beat type reporter has stated that is the next transition. And when I say Swift natively, I mean Swift will be the instruciton set, nothing below it.

Who has said this?

 

[Kostask]

Rene Ritchie has said it on MacBreak Weekly, a few episodes ago, which is where I first heard it. I have heard it elsewhere, but don't remember where. He said that we are at least 10 years away, but it is on Apple's advanced research roadmap.

 

[thenewperson]

The next step up from ARM ISA based SoCs is to run Swift natively. They are far from it, but more than one Apple beat type reporter has stated that is the next transition. And when I say Swift natively, I mean Swift will be the instruciton set, nothing below it.

I'm not sure if this is the same thing, but in this year's 'What's New in Swift' session Ted Kremenek mentioned something like this in the OS. I had no idea what he was referring to however ?

 

[Ritsuka]

What does "run Swift natively" even mean? Swift already runs natively. They could improve some parts of the cpu to speed up some of the instructions mostly used by Swift. But "run Swift natively" makes no sense.

 

[the8thark]

If they cannot outperform the x86 PC, move to Apple Silicon is pointless.

Not true.

All of this is another good reason to make the move to Apple Silicon.

 

[Polly Mercocet]

Depends on Microsoft when talking about consumer PCs at least. If Microsoft is willing to adopt this new architecture and make it easy for players to make hardware built on it, maybe. So far, Windows on ARM has been... not exactly well supported. Considering one reason Windows is still so popular is legacy app support, I’m not sure even Microsoft can really push such a change based on their tepid offerings to date.

Otherwise we’re basically hoping for something like the Chromebook to effectively push Microsoft to the margins and displace Windows entirely. And again, with legacy app support being a thing, it’s not surprising that it’s hard to display Windows.

Microsoft is getting less and less relevant in the consumer market with each year. They still have a strong foothold in the enterprise market, because businesses don't like change and have already dropped a lot of cash on software and support contracts and what have you, but consumers switch at the drop of a hat and Windows is a dying product in the consumer market.

Simply look at laptop sales, they have been declining for years and years. Apple have largely been able to survive this. But Windows PCs have taken a nosedive.

Microsoft is smart enough to know this, which is why they tried so desperately to get into the smartphone and tablet markets, as that's where the consumers are heading. They failed to make a drop in the smartphone market even when they did an exclusive deal with Nokia and even later bought out Nokia's whole smartphone division for a few years. They practically couldn't give Windows Phones away. They failed to make a drop in the tablet market because everyone hated Windows 8, and while Windows 10 fixed all the problems of 8 for the desktop, it still makes for a poor tablet experience.

I don't say this to gloat or anything, in fact I'm disappointed if only because more competition is always good for the consumer. But that's simply the reality.

I also think this is why Microsoft has moved to a freemium data mining model for Windows 10. Only enterprise is excluded from this, as large corporations don't want their OS spying on them, but MS has otherwise just copied the ol' Silicon Valley handbook and began data mining the **** out of its users. They know there won't be many left for very long so they're monetising the data of the remaining ones while they can. This is my theory.

In any case, Microsoft's only real relevance outside of the Xbox is in the enterprise market. It's businesses they'd have to convince to switch to ARM computers. Those businesses all use ARM phones and tablets already and if my company is anything to go by laptops issued to employees get replaced every few years so this is a possibility. But of course MS need to show there's a benefit to whatever they or their OEMs come out with.

As you've rightly said, Windows on ARM in the past has not been successful, but they have been (quietly) working on improving it since. Their big issue will definitely be with backwards compatibility and its enterprise customers who need this the most. If a developer doesn't write an ARM compatible version of their Windows software it'll have to be emulated to x86 which will degrade performance and increase power consumption. So it's largely going to rely on how many developers of enterprise software get on board. And we both know most companies use a lot of legacy software to this day. So it's a risky move. I don't think their corporate customers will want machines they have to emulate commonly used software on.

With that having been said. On the other hand, web apps are becoming more and more common in enterprise instead of native apps. For companies who are following this model, it doesn't really matter what architecture the machine runs as long as the underlying browser is native. Chrome for ARM Windows is already done if I recall correctly.