Is Apple going to ARM to simply be different?

[cmaier]

As a CPU designer in the 1990s, did you see the coming of ML/AI cores? Did you see CPUs 100X-1000X more powerful than what you had running on less than 10W?

Of course. All this was natural evolution and completely foreseeable. And in 10 years we will increase compute/watt by about another 2 orders of magnitude.
[automerge]1598020118[/automerge]

So how come people are saying that a CPU with a Swift ISA is impossible? If Apple thinks they can do it, more power to them. Even if they can't, they may learn some things along the way that can be applied elsewhere. I applaud the fact that they are willing to a) think in new creative ways (I'd like to say outside the box, but I don't think Apple has any idea of what the box is about), and b) willing to invest in projects that may never result in solid projects, but they invest anyway. This is the only way forward.

Apple doesn’t “think they can do it.” Nobody at apple is working on such a thing.

 

[JMacHack]

Would there be a point to having a high-level language ISA when compliers exist?

 

[Jorbanead]

Going back to OP's original question: I could see many reasons to switch to their own silicon.

1. ARM architecture across all products
2. Unified system memory
3. Tightly integrated chip, OS, and software design
4. Neural Engine and machine learning capabilities
5. Hardware accelerators
6. Custom video and audio encoders for FCPX and Logic X
7. A predictable release schedule
8. Better single-core performance
9. Energy efficient for notebooks = longer battery life
10. Smaller mobo = larger battery/fan/storage (or thinner product)

 

[matram]

On the windows side c# and vb.net is compiled to a common intermediate language which is higher level than assembly. Might it be possible to design a CPU that would execute some similar kind of intermediate code?

I do not believe this is the Apple way. When I have a bug in my Swift code (still learning) I find myself (sometimes) looking at Intel Assembly language. I was actually surprised that stuff like ”send message” in OSX is hand coded in Assembly for a number of different architectures. Apple must really care about performance. ?

I must say I find it difficult to see how you could design a CPU that could directly execute a high level language like Swift.

 

[albebaubles]

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.”

Do not overlook power requirements.

 

[Ledgem]

Honestly, the Mac is the one Apple product that one needs the least in terms of said "magic" of being in the Apple ecosystem. iCloud for Windows covers the absolute necessities. Otherwise, you can absolutely substitute a Mac for a Windows 10 machine, but still otherwise enjoy everything else being Apple with nary an issue. Hell, I'm pretty much making that move right now.

Depends on what you're trying to do with it. I FaceTime from my computer (along with my iOS devices); I text from my computer and appreciate that the texts are all in sync with my iOS devices; I use AirDrop to go between my computer and iOS devices (such as sending PDF documents that I'll sign or hand-fill, using the Apple Pencil for input); I appreciate that the photo roll is synchronized between my iPhone and my computer (by default, not uploading the entire library to iCloud). To the best of my knowledge, those functions are not currently possible with a Windows-based computer. Apple Music is accessible from Windows, but does it work as nicely and integrate as tightly if you're using Windows?

None of those features alone are critical, but they build up the "magical" experience of being in the Apple ecosystem. Take those away, and suddenly my iPhone and iPad are standing on their own. It makes a switch to Android a bit less intimidating. The way devices seamlessly and easily interact and synchronize with one another is a strength that relies on unity among all of the devices. If one device is removed from that Apple ecosystem, it becomes easier to remove the others from the Apple ecosystem as well.

 

[Yebubbleman]

Depends on what you're trying to do with it. I FaceTime from my computer (along with my iOS devices); I text from my computer and appreciate that the texts are all in sync with my iOS devices; I use AirDrop to go between my computer and iOS devices (such as sending PDF documents that I'll sign or hand-fill, using the Apple Pencil for input); I appreciate that the photo roll is synchronized between my iPhone and my computer (by default, not uploading the entire library to iCloud). To the best of my knowledge, those functions are not currently possible with a Windows-based computer. Apple Music is accessible from Windows, but does it work as nicely and integrate as tightly if you're using Windows?

None of those features alone are critical, but they build up the "magical" experience of being in the Apple ecosystem. Take those away, and suddenly my iPhone and iPad are standing on their own. It makes a switch to Android a bit less intimidating. The way devices seamlessly and easily interact and synchronize with one another is a strength that relies on unity among all of the devices. If one device is removed from that Apple ecosystem, it becomes easier to remove the others from the Apple ecosystem as well.

I disagree that your iPhone and iPad would stand on their own. iOS/iPadOS integration with macOS is certainly more encompassing than it is with Windows, but it still pales in comparison to iOS and iPadOS devices with each other. Plus the only integration you're going to get between Android and iPadOS are common apps that sync data via their own services. At least with Windows, you have iCloud for Windows which covers the essentials. I'll grant you that there's no easy way to text from an iPhone via a PC or accept a FaceTime call on one either. But, it's not like there aren't services that do those same kinds of things that DO run on Windows, Android, iOS, iPadOS, and macOS. It's only if one is insistent on that "magic" being 100% across the board that it becomes a requirement to keep tablet, phone, and computer all running the same ecosystem. I stick with an iPhone because SMS on my iPad is too valuable of a feature to jettison by switching to Android (plus, there's literally nothing stopping me from buying a Pixel, not activating it with a plan and getting all of the great benefits of that platform as well); but being able to text via a computer is not that important to me. Your mileage will obviously vary.

 

[leman]

On the windows side c# and vb.net is compiled to a common intermediate language which is higher level than assembly. Might it be possible to design a CPU that would execute some similar kind of intermediate code?

And Swift is compiled to LLVM IR which is higher level than assembly. Doesn't mean that any of these intermediate languages is a good fit as a CPU ISA. Can hardware be made to run these things directly? I don't see why not. But it won't be competitive.

By the way, there are CPUs that run Java byte code. As far as I understand, these approaches were superseded by advances in modern JIT compilers.

 

[Ledgem]

But, it's not like there aren't services that do those same kinds of things that DO run on Windows, Android, iOS, iPadOS, and macOS. It's only if one is insistent on that "magic" being 100% across the board that it becomes a requirement to keep tablet, phone, and computer all running the same ecosystem.

Yes, and that is the point. All of these things work without needing to find some alternate, third-party service that the majority of my contacts are using. That convenience is a large draw to stay in Apple's ecosystem. If that's lost, and I am starting to use programs that are widely available across different operating systems to fill that role, then it really doesn't matter whether I'm using a device from Apple or not.

That is something that should frighten Apple greatly.

 

[the8thark]

Yes, and that is the point. All of these things work without needing to find some alternate, third-party service that the majority of my contacts are using. That convenience is a large draw to stay in Apple's ecosystem. If that's lost, and I am starting to use programs that are widely available across different operating systems to fill that role, then it really doesn't matter whether I'm using a device from Apple or not.

That is something that should frighten Apple greatly.

Apple's responce to that is literally Apple Silicon. Features that people want and are really beneficial baked into the silicon itself. So if you go use other programs across different device hardware not made by Apple, well that's your choice. However you miss out on all those features that the Apple Silicon has. If those features are mission critical do what you do, then you are drawn into the Apple ecosystem.
To get those features elsewhere at that level of quality, you'd have to find another device with similar features on a hardware level. None exist at the moment so you have to settle for second best.

 

[Tech198]

Haha, they have always been different
but this just takes it to Really different

 

[Seoras]

I think it is more a sign of where we are in personal computing.
The 80's to 2010's where all about processor and OS dominance which Intel & Microsoft reigned supreme over.
Now all you need, for most basic computing needs, is any machine with a decent browser.
Installed applications are much less important when 98% of what we do is read/write documents, read/write emails, watch videos and do social networking.
Only the minority need dedicated applications.
Developers, like myself, who need Xcode. Graphic artists or designers needing something like PhotoShop.
The processor you use isn't as important as it once was for the vast majority.

 

[cmaier]

I think it is more a sign of where we are in personal computing.
The 80's to 2010's where all about processor and OS dominance which Intel & Microsoft reigned supreme over.
Now all you need, for most basic computing needs, is any machine with a decent browser.
Installed applications are much less important when 98% of what we do is read/write documents, read/write emails, watch videos and do social networking.
Only the minority need dedicated applications.
Developers, like myself, who need Xcode. Graphic artists or designers needing something like PhotoShop.
The processor you use isn't as important as it once was for the vast majority.

It’s funny because I get the opposite vibe. I think this gives Apple a chance to go back to the 80’s, when companies could differentiate themselves with different form factors, CPUs, etc.

 

[MalcolmH]

I think they are doing it so they can extend the iOS App Store catalog to MacOS. What we don't know is whether the benefit of that cross-platform app support outweighs the negatives like the end of boot camp and other stuff that might end up not being supported.

I also think it is funny that a lot of people completely discount that this could all just be a money grab and not about (insert inspirational Tim Cook message about next gen processing with Apple chips here).

There is a non-zero chance we could see significant performance decreases as a result, especially higher end users.

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.

Yes, they can because rendering video is hardware accelerated in almost all modern devices including TVs that play 4K Netflix streams with ease. More tricky is making a Mac that can compile code quickly, run VMs so I can run a database, web server and app server on my laptop like I can today. These loads are difficult to offload to a specialist chip.

 

[JMacHack]

I think it is more a sign of where we are in personal computing.
The 80's to 2010's where all about processor and OS dominance which Intel & Microsoft reigned supreme over.
Now all you need, for most basic computing needs, is any machine with a decent browser.
Installed applications are much less important when 98% of what we do is read/write documents, read/write emails, watch videos and do social networking.
Only the minority need dedicated applications.
Developers, like myself, who need Xcode. Graphic artists or designers needing something like PhotoShop.
The processor you use isn't as important as it once was for the vast majority.

I disagree, in terms of "consumer" computing many people use more than browsers (though that is a significant segment) video games are a huge market and I would say represent a larger slice of the "consumer" computing market than people who just browse social media or stream movies.

And this is ignoring the growing "prosumer" market, which are people who stream games, or edit videos of the like. Things like Twitch bring in big bucks, along with Youtube.

In fact, I would say this is why Apple is switching architectures in the first place, they see a future where their in-house designs are both more powerful and efficient than what Intel can deliver.

 

[Seoras]

I disagree, in terms of "consumer" computing many people use more than browsers (though that is a significant segment) video games are a huge market and I would say represent a larger slice of the "consumer" computing market than people who just browse social media or stream movies.

And this is ignoring the growing "prosumer" market, which are people who stream games, or edit videos of the like. Things like Twitch bring in big bucks, along with Youtube.

In fact, I would say this is why Apple is switching architectures in the first place, they see a future where their in-house designs are both more powerful and efficient than what Intel can deliver.

If Apple had been a "serious gaming platform" then a processor change would be all the more concerning for both gamers and developers.
MacOS isn't a gaming platform. There are plenty of dedicated gaming platforms out there.
Switching processor is easier when you are prepared for it (last years 64 bit only MacOS) and when your user base is using applications that aren't so silicon sensitive.
I'm going to bring Epic in to this discussion. I think they've made a miscalculation in just how important Apple's platforms are to Apple's interest in the gamers. The only niche user Apple ever seemed to care about was the content creators.

I agree that Apple's Silicon will be more powerful and efficient. My post didn't contradict that.
I think you are missing my point.
If you use the layered model and look at it from a stack perspective the silicon layer is no longer a reason to lock down the layers above it.
A truly layered design model shouldn't let lower layer dictate upper layers

 

[the8thark]

The only niche user Apple ever seemed to care about was the content creators.

Content creators (ie crative professionals) and the education sector. When Jobs made is famous "hey I'm back at Apple" speech at Macworld he talked about starting with the bases that the Mac was already strong in and he specifically mentioned those two markets.
Fast forward to today and for the most part Apple is still strong in both of these sectors. Apple has cared about more but those traditionally have been Apple's strongest.

Also these users are not niche at all. Both are part of billion dollar sectors.

 

[Seoras]

Content creators (ie crative professionals) and the education sector. When Jobs made is famous "hey I'm back at Apple" speech at Macworld he talked about starting with the bases that the Mac was already strong in and he specifically mentioned those two markets.
Fast forward to today and for the most part Apple is still strong in both of these sectors. Apple has cared about more but those traditionally have been Apple's strongest.

Also these users are not niche at all. Both are part of billion dollar sectors.

By niche I mean not what the majority are using their Macs for.
I don't use Final Cut Pro X and I'm sure the majority don't either.
FCPX is a good example of Apple making sure it has a niche area covered to keep its root content creating strong user base. It's what Apple's machines were known for back in the beginning. ( but try finding FCPX on the website store!!! )
Switching processor doesn't matter for these users because they can stick with Intel for now or move to ARM knowing that with it being an Apple product there shouldn't be much to worry about. (EDIT) I'd also like to add that by Apple providing FCPX they don't have to worry about 3rd party developers not backing processor changes and supporting a 2 processor OS like MacOS is becoming.

 

[matram]

I think of content creators as a label for a certain customer profile, e.g. Color accurate screens, good GPU performance but NOT screaming hot gaming systems. FCPX is of course only one possible tools use in content creation.

I think Apple care about software working well on the HW and FCPX is one example of that as opposed to Premier.

It will be interesting to see what Apple can do when they control the silicon.

 

[the8thark]

By niche I mean not what the majority are using their Macs for.
I don't use Final Cut Pro X and I'm sure the majority don't either.
FCPX is a good example of Apple making sure it has a niche area covered to keep its root content creating strong user base. It's what Apple's machines were known for back in the beginning. ( but try finding FCPX on the website store!!! )
Switching processor doesn't matter for these users because they can stick with Intel for now or move to ARM knowing that with it being an Apple product there shouldn't be much to worry about. (EDIT) I'd also like to add that by Apple providing FCPX they don't have to worry about 3rd party developers not backing processor changes and supporting a 2 processor OS like MacOS is becoming.

That depends on how you define niche. In terms of numbers you might be correct. Though it terms of sales revenue and profit I'm sure the creative professionals and edication market are a large part of it on the Mac side.

Also the processor switch affects these people in a huge way. One example - will all your FCPX plugins work on a 64 bit ASi Mac? If the mission critical ones don't, then you have issues and a few hard decisions to make.
Also the need for bootcamp might be a factor too.

Also switching to ASi is not a trivial cost. If you take myself (I live outside the USA) as an example. The next iMac I will get ASi one, will probably cost around 3K. That's a lot of money for a lot of people.
The 10k - 100k or more business cost to switch to ASi is not trivial either.

 

[Boil]

Also switching to ASi is not a trivial cost. If you take myself (I live outside the USA) as an example. The next iMac I will get ASi one, will probably cost around 3K. That's a lot of money for a lot of people.
The 10k - 100k or more business cost to switch to ASi is not trivial either.

You are making it sound like individuals & businesses will HAVE to buy new Apple silicon Macs when they come out.

Intel Macs will still work after the transition, and for many years to come.

And that huge cost for a business to switch, how is it different from a business updating to new computers anyway, whether Intel or Apple silicon or whatever?

Same for an individual, no one is forcing you to upgrade to Apple silicon immediately. The only difference is when you go to upgrade, rather than an Intel Mac you will be getting an Apple silicon Mac...

 

[dmccloud]

That depends on how you define niche. In terms of numbers you might be correct. Though it terms of sales revenue and profit I'm sure the creative professionals and edication market are a large part of it on the Mac side.

Also the processor switch affects these people in a huge way. One example - will all your FCPX plugins work on a 64 bit ASi Mac? If the mission critical ones don't, then you have issues and a few hard decisions to make.
Also the need for bootcamp might be a factor too.

Also switching to ASi is not a trivial cost. If you take myself (I live outside the USA) as an example. The next iMac I will get ASi one, will probably cost around 3K. That's a lot of money for a lot of people.
The 10k - 100k or more business cost to switch to ASi is not trivial either.

Every business has an upgrade cycle, so there really is not any "additional" cost to upgrading your computers when that time comes. As far as FPCX plugins go, I'd wager that 99% of the plugin developers are already updating them for Apple Silicon, most likely on one (or more) of the DTK systems. I also think that the handwringing over BootCamp is all for naught. Microsoft already has Windows 10 running on ARM processors (see the Surface Pro X and certain Samsung Galaxy notebooks), so creating a version of Bootcamp for AS Macs really isn't as complicated an issue as some people have claimed. Of course, Microsoft would have to adjust its own licensing terms for that version of Windows, but I'd wager than Apple is already in talks with Redmond on that front.

 

[leman]

If Apple had been a "serious gaming platform" then a processor change would be all the more concerning for both gamers and developers.
MacOS isn't a gaming platform. There are plenty of dedicated gaming platforms out there.

I think that Apple these days is fairly serious about gaming. Recent changes they made to Metal as well their GPUs will make Apple Silicon a capable gaming platform with console-like control over the hardware. Current games will still run - better than in old Macs - but games written specifically for Apple Silicon will run much better.

I think they've made a miscalculation in just how important Apple's platforms are to Apple's interest in the gamers. The only niche user Apple ever seemed to care about was the content creators.

They made a miscalculation as to how much a Apple would be willing to compromise. Unreal Engine doesn’t have much presence on the Apple ecosystem and the one hurt in long term will be Epic themselves. All this will give Epic a reputation of an unreliable business partner. Game developers who are interested in the Apple share of pie will switch to an alternative engine.

 

[Ledgem]

Apple's responce to that is literally Apple Silicon. Features that people want and are really beneficial baked into the silicon itself. So if you go use other programs across different device hardware not made by Apple, well that's your choice. However you miss out on all those features that the Apple Silicon has. If those features are mission critical do what you do, then you are drawn into the Apple ecosystem.
To get those features elsewhere at that level of quality, you'd have to find another device with similar features on a hardware level. None exist at the moment so you have to settle for second best.

I think we're talking past each other here. I don't disagree that Apple will be able to do some neat stuff with the hardware. My point is that it really doesn't matter if there are no programs that can make use of it, let alone run on it. People are making a big deal about Final Cut Pro, and as a Final Cut Pro user I can say that yes, I think it's going to be really awesome. But I run a lot more programs than just Final Cut Pro, and do a lot more than just video editing, and if those programs don't make the transition over, then I'm stuck - regardless of how amazing the hardware may be.

I think that's the point that's also being missed when people are talking about Apple and gaming in this thread. Does Apple care about gaming? Sure, they're doing some neat things with Metal, but is that really for gaming? Have they made any major overtures to gaming companies, or any major efforts to get games onto their platform? I don't think many of us have any insider information - I certainly don't - and while Apple Arcade seems like a promising effort, the proof is in the fact that Apple still misses out on major gaming titles, and when it does receive them they're not even natively coded, but instead "ports" using various kludges to run (many iOS games excluded, although it's worth noting that mobile games are really a different class of games compared with traditional console games).

We'll see how things shake out. If the software I use makes the transition, then I can make the transition. Otherwise, Apple Silicon can be the most amazing car engine out there, but without a proper chassis, human interface, and set of wheels, it's basically useless to me. And if I have to go back to Windows, well... if Android turns out to play more nicely with Windows than my iPhone, then I might end up going there. And that means my Apple Watch goes away, and the iPad needs to fend for itself. As I said in an earlier post, the "walled garden" is a strength, but it all has the potential to crumble quite quickly if one of the major stones is removed.

 

[Kostask]

May I ask, if you do end up going back to Windows, will it reduce any software costs for you? If you have an investment in Mac Apps for Intel, how will the software investment be lower if you go to windows? With the AS Mac, you upgrade the software as it becomes avaialble. If it takes a while, you let it run in Rosetta 2 until it does (some software won't run in Rosetta 2, I know). Alternatively, you transition away from Mac to Windows. You need to buy all of your significant apps all over again, as most software companies do not allow cross platform upgrades (some do). In your case, you said you run FCPX. Great, its already on AS. If you move to Windows, you will need to run say, Adobe Premiere. I believe that an FCPX update is considerably cheaper than Adobe Premiere, or Adobe CC. Obviously, your choice, but economically, it doesn't really work, does it? Same goes with stabd alone Office (not Office 365), and any other "real" Mac software. If you want to go to Windows, that is your choice. But do not pretend that the AS Mac is forcing you to move to Windows, because that is obviously NOT true. If you want to move to Android, that too is your choice, but its not going to the the AS Mac forcing you to change. You don't even have to wait for the AS Macs to come out, you can transition now, if that is what you want to do; the logic behind your transitioning to Windows does not change because the AS Macs are being released or not.