I have to agree that the strongest player right now (Apple) is not interested in this battle royale.
We need either Qualcomm or Microsoft to pickup their game in order to develop a world class ARM chip for all the different markets (mobile/PC/server) to fuel software development to break for good the Wintel monopoly.
Apple will most likely keep its secret sauce inside its ecosystem.
There are other ARM SoC companies optimizing for the datacenter in ways that wouldn't make sense on a personal computer. That's not an issue. I think the issue is doing so for the personal computer in a way that competes with Apple. I don't think it's enough that Apple has made a good SoC. I think that same SoC powering any other OS would still be pretty impressive, but Apple's strength is that the SoC is built around the OS it runs and vice versa. Apple has always had that with the iPad, Apple Watch, and second gen and newer Apple TVs, they've also had that with the iPhone since the iPhone 4 and A4. Performance has grown for those devices accordingly over the years. Now, it's the Mac's turn. Microsoft would need to build the SoC (SQ1 and SQ2 are still heavily Qualcomm based, if I understand correctly) AND the version of Windows 10 would need to be optimized for it. Unless Microsoft sells those SoCs to OEMs, you're not going to see the kind of vertical integration we now see with Apple Silicon Macs.
Of course it's a game changer. Intel has one foot in the grave so it looks like AMD is alone when it comes to chips. It's not direct competition though because Apple makes machines for specific purposes rather than chips. I'm sure AMD is looking very closely at Apple Silicon and figuring a way to copy or at least make a version of it. Laptops and small desktops are the near future of computing and that's where Apple M1 is crushing it. Long range it might be more computing offloaded to the cloud so on device power might not be as critical.
Intel is a HUGE company. Processors are only part of what it does. Even if its processor business were going down the tubes, they could keep it alive with the Xeon alone. AMD is making a huge comeback tour with Ryzen, but they don't have the production capability that Intel has. If Intel's processor business is going down a death spiral, it will take many many years to run its course. In the meantime, unless the benchmarks show that M1 Macs when running native Adobe apps completely crush similar costing PCs, proving Macs to be a better performance value, x86 isn't going anywhere. AMD, as far as I know, has toyed around with ARM processors before. I believe Intel has too. Though, neither one will be able to replicate Apple's vertical integration even with their own ARM designs. THAT is the secret sauce.
Then I'll just say wait and see what happens.
Apple has proven that ARM is the future. Microsoft and the PC industry will be trying their best to imitate this and x64 will likely be dead in 7 years. That's what I think at least.
x86-64/x64 will not be dead in 7 years. Microsoft is still struggling to kill 32-bit x86 Windows. It's only supported on business class laptops and desktops now for backwards compatibility for those that still need it. You cannot buy a consumer PC or desktop PC parts that have 32-bit x86 Windows 10 drivers. Furthermore, Windows Server 2008 R2 was the first version of Windows Server to drop 32-bit entirely. My point is that, Server 2008 R2 (contemporary to Windows 7) is 11 years old and Microsoft still has 32-bit Windows 10 client support that it hasn't finished deprecating (and really, they're not the ones doing it; it's the OEMs that are basically deciding to omit 32-bit drivers for all but business class systems).
So, no, x86-64/x64 is going to be around for way longer than 7 years. The PC industry has no clue how to move to ARM64. It's going to take them at least 7 years to get that plan fully baked and then at least another 14 to properly execute.
x86 I presume?
If software support for ARM spreads to Windows machines, we may see the demise of Wintel anx x86, but I think it'd take a couple of decades. Old devices are getting better at clinging to usability.
Microsoft refers to x86-64 and 64-bit x86 as "x64". It's stupid. It's also referred to as AMD64, but at least that makes some kind of sense, since it was AMD that first created it. Otherwise there is IA-64, the architecture of the now-defunct Intel Itanium CPUs.
True, but in the case of OpenGL it was depreciated a long time ago and the axe never came. I'm quite sure it will stay there for a while, if not indefinitely — Apple has nothing to lose by continuing to ship their wrapper. It's not like depreciation of 32-bit software or some legacy UI frameworks which had some real support cost and which messed up the software infrastructure.
What I am trying to say is complaining that "Apple disallows users to run OpenGL apps" is a bit silly, because those apps still run fine.
Apple deprecating something means it's on borrowed time. Sometimes they're good about killing support for something deprecated on time. Other times, they're not. I wouldn't be surprised if they eventually disallowed OpenGL apps.
As for Apple discontinuing support for things that they don't lose anything by keeping, I'd point to the original PowerPC-to-Intel Rosetta and 32-bit x86 application support (at least on Intel Macs) as things that they really didn't need to get rid of, but did anyway.
Microsoft IS ALREADY serious about Arm. They have ported Windows to Arm, not just the desktop version that we talk about but the server versions.
Do you have a link? Because I'm like 99% sure that they don't sell retail any version of Windows Server 2012 R2, 2016, or 2019 that uses anything other than x86-64/64-bit x86/x64. That's not to say that they don't have versions (I'd be shocked if they didn't). But I've never seen or heard of versions of these OSes that were accessible to end users/organizations directly.
They build their own servers for Azure and many of them are Arm running Windows server for Arm.
Again, would love to see evidence of this.
They have undertaken the large task of porting Office to Arm, not just for Apple silicon but for Windows as well.
They have hired a large number of CPU designers to produce their own cpus. Purely for Arm.
It's my understanding that their involvement with SQ1 and SQ2 was not as in-depth as Apple's with M1. SQ1 and SQ2 are still Qualcomm chips. They just took more direct input from Microsoft during design.
Here’s a thought- why does someone else have to develop arm desktops for it to get Traction. Apple silicon runs Windows fantastically in virtualization, and Microsoft can ( and I believe will) offer a Version that boots natively in Apple silicon.
These machines are fantastic and are only the tip of the iceberg of what Apple will produce over the next year.
Yes Apple silicon has changed the industry. Two Tuesdays ago will be noted as the beginning of the end of X86.
Two Tuesdays ago was the beginning of the end of x86 as the primary/dominant Mac processor architecture. Unless Microsoft shoves Qualcomm completely aside and actually becomes its own chipmaker, we're not going to see the tight level of vertical integration of hardware and software between Windows 10 for ARM64 and a custom SoC that we do between macOS 11 and the M1 currently. It's not just copying Apple's playbook on the chip front. That has to be done on the software front for it to change the industry outside of Apple. Otherwise, saying that this changes the computer industry is like saying that the Nintendo Wii changed the video game industry compared to the Playstation 3 and XBox 360; (a) it didn't, and (b) it only did for Nintendo as is evidenced by the current console lineups today.
Deprecated technologies on Apple platforms tend to not live long and happy lives thereafter.
For now its an Apple gamechanger that will impact its ecosystem - particularly future software development for the Apple ecosystem since mobile, desktop, laptop, and ipad software is written for the same architecture.
If Apple proves to be successful with this going into the future - others will follow with their own approach to using ARM (RISC) with a SOC approach. The impact will be that resources will flow into ARM development and pull resources away from x86 development. One could envision Intel and AMD migrating their focus to this.
Making an SoC isn't the secret sauce. Hell, even making an SoC with highly advanced subcomponents that specialize in things that would previously be tasked to the CPU along with an M1-like unified memory architecture isn't enough. These things are fantastic starts, but they are not it. Apple can engineer their software around Apple Silicon and Apple Silicon around their software. You're not going to get that vertical integration with Windows 10 for ARM64 (at best you could come close with a Surface product, but certainly you won't with any third party PC made by any of the other OEMs). Your best hope is that a new player comes to town with their own vertically integrated SoC, subcomponents, and operating system as tightly optimized for each other. And the odds of that happening are slimmer than they are that Apple will finally release a PowerBook G5, which is to say anorexic.
Windows is architecture independent too. It uses a hardware abstraction layer, and has at one point or another been compiled for x32, x64, ARM, RISC, and PowerPC, in addition to the x86-64 version most commonly used on AMD and Intel hardware today.
Fair point. However, there's no fat binary system in place and Microsoft is not in the position to shift primary focus away from x86-64/x64. In fact, it was the OEMs that ultimately stopped producing 32-bit Windows 10 drivers for everything that wasn't a business class desktop or laptop (or component therein). Microsoft can produce versions of Windows on any architecture just like it can lead horses to water. Making the developers drink by developing for those architectures is another challenge entirely.
Any Windows 10 apps that only use native libraries, can be compiled for ARM with the press of a button. Windows isn't married to x86-64 at all.
If we're talking UWP, sure. But most apps are not UWP. If they were, then Windows 10 in S mode wouldn't be something people immediately tried to turn off.
This degree of power in a tiny, fanless computer is an absolute stepchange to what was possible using x86 chips. The Intel 12” MacBook, the only other fanless Mac, was weak on CPU performance and especially weak on GPU performance. The AS MacBook Air trades blows with a 16” MacBook Pro with discrete graphics (albeit quite entry-level discrete graphics).
Does that matter for the wider industry? At the moment, I don’t think the pieces are there on the Windows side. But this might be a catalyst to start getting them in place. It’s worth noting neither Intel or AMD have any answer to the M1 for fanless ultrabook class devices (nor does Qualcomm for the moment). So Apple has the opportunity to expand and take the cream off this lucrative market segment, which might be a worry for other OEMs where the overall PC market is stagnant. Unless Intel or AMD can pull off a quick comeback, we might see redoubled interest from Microsoft and their OEMs for using Arm in this market segment, eventually forcing x86 out if it is successful. I suppose it hinges on whether Intel/AMD or Qualcomm/Microsoft/any consortium of OEMs are first to, or more successful at mounting a challenge here.
Honestly, I don't see how the rest of the industry can respond 100% to Apple right now. They can look at ARM and see the potential (as I'm sure they all are doing right now). But they won't have a means of getting there in the ways that Apple got there. The vertical integration between the OS and the SoC that Apple has won't be easy or even feasible for Microsoft or third parties to do. Not without changing the business model behind Windows PCs at a fundamental level.
All that being said, it was only during the Intel Mac era that a comparison between a Mac and a Windows PC wasn't an Apples and Oranges comparison. It was the same chips. Now, we're just back to the PowerPC era of comparing Mac to PC in that they're two different computers entirely.
Agreed, from an Intel Mac pricing for new and used dropping like a rock - I'd say the M1 is a gamechanger!
I can't even pay someone to take my old Intel Macs off my hands while before the M1, it fetched a premium!
I have not seen Intel Mac pricing drop at all and I've actually been looking lately! Where have you been looking? Which Intel Macs are you seeing price drops on (aside from the obvious recently discontinued models).
Good point. I would be interested in what is going through Qualcomm's mind at this point. They may be considering putting more resources into an enhanced implementation of ARM that is a robust SOC. Apple's implementation may be opening their eyes to bein the "new Intel" of the ARM market.
They are advancing. The stuff they had in pre-Surface-Pro-X ARM Windows 10 PCs was worse than the SQ1. And those were second generation ARM Windows 10 PCs. There was a first generation that REALLY was underpowered. The difference here is that Microsoft is showing the world their hand before they have the finishing move queued up. Apple doesn't play to the table until they're ready to win outright.
Yes. And if you don’t think that there are people working furiously up in Redmond on making sure that their company can take advantage of what no one else can offer now and likely for a really long time... well you don’t understand what the M1 has brought.
I don't think it's anywhere near that simple. Plus, Microsoft is not a hardware company in the way that Apple is. For them to take on Apple in this fashion would require them to shift focus into being a hardware company first and foremost rather than being a software and services company which is what they've always been. The Surface line has always been about being a reference computer, akin to the now-defunct Google Nexus series of phones and the Pixel phones that have replaced them.
Qualcomm might do that but they do most of the Arm work for PCs in conjunction with Microsoft. The Sq1 and 2 are Microsoft designed.
Microsoft didn't have as much control over the SQ1 and SQ2 as Apple did over the M1. The two are not comparable. Even if they were, Microsoft is not a hardware company in the way that Apple is. They never were and never will be.
My understanding is x64 is the name of the 64-bit version of x86, which is what all Intel and AMD CPUs are now.
Edit: I just looked it up and apparently that's not what it means, but rather it refers to ANY 64bit architecture. Makes no sense but whatever. Yeah I mean x86 lol
Microsoft uses "x64" to denote "64-bit x86", "x86-64", and AMD64, which are all different ways of referring to the same thing.
I'm well aware what Microsoft is doing with ARM. But I don't agree that they are taking it seriously yet. This is Microsoft testing the waters and playing. Dragging their heels hoping some third party OEM or app maker makes it catch fire.
THIS
Office was supposed to be ported to ARM for Windows RT something like a decade ago now, and then canned after Windows RT failed.
Actually Office RT 2013 is a thing that exists for Windows RT and, to my knowledge, always has. Certainly it's on the original Surface RT that I have collecting dust right now. I think it might've been included as part of Windows RT (at least on the two Surface devices that shipped with Windows RT).
Now they are doing it again for the Surface Pro X which has already been out for a year, when they should have been working on it 2 years ago so it was ready to go last year. Not when the MacBU folks are helping do the hard work for them now. Having 32-bit x86 and not 64-bit was a facepalm moment as well. If Microsoft was serious about this, Apple wouldn't have been able to so completely upset the apple cart with this (pun intended?).
Again, Apple waits until everything is perfect. Microsoft gives you what it can when it can.
While I have a bit more confidence that Satya isn't going to utterly faceplant like Balmer did with the mobile phone market, he's still focused on SaaS and Azure. I'll believe Microsoft is getting serious about this when my sources start talking about more projects getting funded to make the Surface Pro X more than just a redheaded stepchild of the lineup.
For sure. The Surface Pro X really needs to take off. But then again, so does development for Windows 10 for ARM64. It's very much a catch 22.
This. Nvidia is in a strong position to produce competitive SoC designs based on ARM architecture to offer Apple competitors something to try to compete with Apple Silicon with.
But it remains to be seen if they can catch up to Apple's lead with TSMC no 5nm (and soon less) production. The Ti 3080 uses 8nm, with Ampere moving to TSMC 7nm in 2021. Apple will be jumping to 4nm in 2022 if rumours hold.
Of course, there is a "good enough" factor for lower-end Windows laptops (already is or the market wouldn't exist) so even a 7nm SoC might provide a close enough measure of performance and noise/energy consumption, leaving the high end to Apple.
Even if NVIDIA produces a killer SoC, it will still need to be optimized heavily for the OS it runs and vice versa to truly have a shot at hitting Apple. Again, it all boils down to vertical integration.
From a technical point of view, I think Apple hit a home run with ARM, but in their own ball game. The PC-industry plays a different ball-game of vendors stuffing stuff from other vendors into standardized boxes. I'm anxious to find out if the PC industry will move and why. What is the incentive for following Apple's lead? I don't think it will be driven by corporate needs, maybe corporate greed. If HP/Lenovo finds out that owning hardware/software is the way to keep market share, they will probably try to catch up.
But can they? Microsoft has its Surface-products, but they have their heads nowadays in The Cloud, and Surface was never made from scratch but based on the Windows architecture.
So I am wondering what will drive a possible change in the computer industry. Blockbuster was still around when Netflix started streaming; the fax was still there in the Internet's beginning years. Probably it will be a prolonged revolution. One where you and I are already witnessing it personally, but the rest of the world doesn’t.
Apple computers are still a corporate nightmare for many IT-departments because it's not Windows ("our invoice to Printer Visual Basic script doesn't run on it") and is an expensive machine for average consumers. In the third quarter of 2020, Apple shipped 14.5 percent of all PC units in the US, so 85,5 percent did not buy an Apple computer. We all know that the iPhone changed the smartphone industry. The iPhone has transformed from a niche product for early adopters to a mainstream product, partly because of the tightly integrated hardware and software. That took years. Even when you love the iPhone success story, Apple has "only" a 13.5 percent market share in smartphones.
I bought the M1 as a backup for the MBP16. I now have the M1 as the main machine and the MBP16 as a backup for my specific workflow. I never thought I would do that. I feel the excitement of a new future coming for computing. Apple will lead with performance and battery life in the next years like they did many years with the iPhone. But will it change the industry?
I think that's a good point; Apple has always been able to force change. As a result apps that released 8 years ago don't run on Macs today. You absolutely don't have that problem with Windows whatsoever. Microsoft can't force developers to start developing ARM64 native binary versions of their apps, especially when they give them no real reason to do so with hardware that is seen as weak because there are no native binaries out for it! Again, it's a catch 22 that stems from the fact that no one is forcing or even incentivizing Windows 10 for ARM64 app development.
The Nvidia people have been signaling that they are more interested in server processors than desktop. They want to do for servers what Apple is doing for desktop and laptops. I am sure that the higher margin has a lot to do with that.
But someone moving forward on arm for server is highly needed.
There are others doing ARM SoCs for servers. It's not like there was a total vacancy here. And it's not like Apple's SoCs are geared for the datacenter. They're not really. Certainly no more than the Core i7 processor Macs they put out were viable for the datacenter.
Yes, because it is an official wake up call to the industry that intel has either been sandbagging for years (maybe the case from say 2011-2014) and/or lost their leadership/ability to execute in the past 5 years.
No different from the NetBurst days of the Pentium 4. Intel is basically in the same spot they were in from late 2000 to early 2006.
As business apps are becoming more cloud centric/cross-platform and less "Windows on intel" dependent, you can expect hardware vendors to go where the battery life/performance advantages are for those apps that are on-device. Windows+Office is not the "big stick" for intel support that it used to be. 365 runs (well!) in a browser and your traditional Access+SQL business apps (that tied people specifically to PCs and not phones/tablets/non-intel+windows PCs) are moving to stuff like PowerBI in the cloud.
It's going to take a LONG time for that transition to make "Windows on x86" irrelevant. Many companies are not competent enough to even start that process with their own infrastructure (even in 2020).
Apple have proven that intel can be not just slightly beaten, but utterly crushed in performance per watt with a custom design. Before apple did this, nobody else was willing to bet the big dollars required on a "maybe it will be competitive with intel?" in designing their own higher end ARM based cores. Apple also has the software advantage as they've spent decades building and encouraging use of their frameworks (this is why they were anti-CUDA for a decade for example already) for doing high end workloads - which means they can get good speed on existing non-native software by calling into those native frameworks from non-native apps (that were using those frameworks but the app itself is compiled for x86).
Expect other vendors to build their own ARM based processors for this segment (high end in the low power segment and later, desktop) in the near future. Apple has proven it can be done, and is worth the effort. They've shown just how far behind the state of the art that intel/x86 truly is.
Yeah, but without the vertical integration between the OS and the SoC, the other ARM processors will still be a fair bit behind Apple. As that's their advantage right now. They'll probably still catch up to x86, but not for a few more years, at least. x86 will still rule the non-Apple personal computing space for a good while yet, despite having been proven to no longer be the fastest out there anymore.
Why does it have to be surface pro x? Why can’t they leverage Apple Silicon?
They are making a bid developer push to get code moved to arm. No where near as ways Apple but they are doing it. My sources tell me that there are lots of developers with new arm projects.
Apple Silicon Macs alone won't be enough for Windows 10 for ARM64 to be successful. It is unique in that it's the only way new Macs will be able to run Windows 10 going forward (as Intel Macs will eventually disappear from the market). The Surface Pro X is Microsoft's reference design computer to showcase to other OEMs that Windows 10 for ARM64 can work and that's how to craft a good PC running it.
One note I would offer to everyone. Do not get hung up on the fact that Apple has moved to Arm and that is why it’s great. There is a reason why they don’t even mention that it’s arm. It is Apple silicon. Because that is what it is. No one else in the industry has the capability to build something that can compete with the M series. Please remember that the M 1 is the low end, low power processor. And yet it gives every mainstream processor but 2 a run for it’s money. Think about what is coming. Apple has completely changed the game.
They've changed the game...but for no one other than themselves. It will be a long time (if ever) before we have as sizable of a challenger to x86 for Windows computing.
I'd say that's a premature call and that we will find out. Much as I like Apple, "Apple Silicon" isn't some magical pixie dust that only apple can manufacture. Yes it is proprietary Apple tech in there, but the things they are doing are not some incomparable tech that others can't also produce, given the motivation.
No one else in the industry has
attempted to build a high end ARM part yet (well, not since the RiscPC in the mid-late 90s) because they either aren't in the laptop/computer market or haven't wanted to be the one to take the risk on it.
Apple, with their massive bank balance was in the position to do so. M1 is only the start of what I suspect will end up being a flood of competitive ARM based machines from various vendors including Nvidia (think, ARM based core with onboard Nvidia GPU/AI/ML tech).
You think Nvidia, who now own arm can't do it? Please.... if M1 succeeds, and it will - Nvidia for sure will offer something competitive with or faster than whatever Apple put out for other hardware OEMs. Amazon are already using high performance ARM (for their own servers), just not for the market apple is in.
People may not know but the original ARM processors from the 80s were much more powerful than x86 of the day. The only reason they failed was due to inadequate marketing and x86 commodity hardware due to the decision by IBM to use the 8088 in the PC (and thus everybody wanting a DOS compatible machine).
People may actually be surprised when it is Nvidia, not Apple who conquer the PC market. Apple will still maintain a significant share, but Windows on ARM based Nvidia SOC is likely where the bulk of the market will probably end up eventually.
Nvidia probably bought ARM in order to ensure that even if AMD try what Apple is trying, they're now paying Nvidia a license anyway
No other company will be as efficient with it as Apple. But that also means that it will be a good while longer before we have ARM SoCs in use by OEMs in PCs that make x86 seem silly to use by comparison.
Why would it be on Apple Silicon? Microsoft isn't going to want to tie themselves to Apple's ARM designs to move things forward.
Part of the issue is that the Win10 business model is focused on OEM revenue. Not direct licensing. They could, but I maybe give it 50/50 that Microsoft would offer a direct Win10 ARM license just because Apple is now on ARM. And that's assuming Microsoft isn't turned off by the use of iBoot.
If they do go for it, I half expect it'll either be through some sort of bundle deal with Parallels, or as a VirtualPC revival.
I think Apple and Microsoft will strike a deal to put Windows 10 for ARM64 in the Mac App Store (on Apple Silicon Macs only) with Apple having worked heavily in collaboration with Microsoft on drivers, an iBoot-compliant bootloader for Windows 10, and a special installer that, while not the Boot Camp Assistant we know today on Intel Macs, is still going to serve more or less the same end function. They'll charge the same as a retail version (with the Pro version being upgradable to Enterprise) and the product key will be baked into the installer (as the Mac App Store will be good enough of an anti-piracy scheme for Microsoft).
I've watched them fart around half-heartedly with ARM for a very long time now, and this is their second go at a "big push". They aren't being aggressive about getting OEMs to adopt ARM, they pretty much threw the ARM Win32 SDK over the wall after realizing UWP and the like are going to have limited support by 3rd party devs, and they themselves have one consumer device that runs it.
This smells a lot like Windows Phone's problems getting developer support. They understand they need developers, but they don't really seem to understand what makes a good carrot or stick to get developers to do what you want. They need OEMs, but they can't really use the stick with them. They make good engineering tools, but their frameworks are a hodge podge of ideas and experiments. Abandoned, but eternally supported.
I mostly bring up the Surface Pro X because it's about the only Windows 10 ARM device you can reliably get your hands on right now. Which is part of the problem. And in terms of impact/speed, Apple's approach is ridiculously more effective.
Apple announced the ARM switch at WWDC. We already have Office and Photoshop betas available to use on the M1. Most of the smaller software I use has already gotten ARM builds pushed out into an official release of that software before I even get my M1 Mini. I really wouldn't be surprised if Apple completes the transition, and we're mostly just talking about the handful of straggler developers, while Microsoft is still "making a big push".
There are other Windows 10 ARM devices. Nothing to write home about, but the Surface Pro X isn't the only one. And they do keep improving, albeit not by enough of a margin to matter.
Two other companies with the resources to attempt to replicate what Apple has done are Microsoft and Google. Google doesn’t really have the motivation, since ChromeBooks aren’t so much about catering to power users as they are about getting cheap devices out to a mass audience. Microsoft potentially has the motivation, since they are pushing Window on ARM. However, they aren’t as vertically integrated, and Surface to date has been more of a “hobby”/attempt at making reference designs.
Office and Windows are cash cows rather than growth markets, but arguably so is the Mac for Apple. So I wouldn’t discount Microsoft making a push here.
They care about Windows 10 for ARM64 enough to be incentivized to see it running and thriving on Apple Silicon Macs. I don't know if that's enough to cause developer interest in the platform. If Microsoft was smart, they'd capitalize on this. Because, not to sound like a broken record, the Surface Pro X suffers from a lack of native apps, the x86 apps that do run do so horribly slow, which turns developers off to developing for Windows 10 for ARM64, which perpetuates the Surface Pro X's problem of not having enough apps and seeming slow. Catch 22.
This discussion is very interesting! I think yes, but it will not be an instant pivot point. This is the harbinger moment akin to iPhone being introduced in 2007. I'm not a complete Apple Junkie in saying that, I own a nice high end desktop PC that uses 500 watts of power - however I'm using my MBA M1 everywhere and I've loaded 18 games from my PC games library on it that all run well enough on a machine that can do so for hours away from a plug, and with ZERO noise emissions. I think things pivot in conjunction with 5G rollout once Apple gets the 5G modem integrated on the M1 SoC - hasn't this "always connected, always on" battery champion mobile device the goal for years now? MS has wanted to do this - they just don't have the chipset to use - and yes, Nvidia sees this too. I'm buying more Nvidia and Apple Stock for now.
I'm curious as to which 18 PC games you have running on your M1 MacBook Air (as I only know of 1 game that's even native and that's World of Warcraft)?
The scary thing is, there will be a version in 2022 that will run M1 which is positioned like an iPad or iPhone SE.
Mac Mini is already at $699. They can pull of a $599 Mac that will be a workhorse now that they own the chips.
There are also a lot of tech in the current iPhones and iPads that are not on the Mac because of Intel. Think Pro-motion display, thinner and lighter, more sensors, Face-ID, better cameras, 5G and more.
The will re-engineer the heck out of this thing.
Other laptop manufacturers will have these own set of features too, but their lack of integration will result in a poorly-designed device. Anything with a large noisy fan will not allow the form factor that Apple will be making.
The only manufacturer capable of holding their own is Samsung since they are the only other company making great phones. HP, Asus, Dell, will not be ready.
Samsung needs an operating system, just like Dell, Asus, and HP all do. TouchWiz is still Android at the end of the day. At best, Samsung is an OEM that makes pretty devices. No different than Asus, Dell, and HP (at least as far as SOME of their machines are concerned).
You don’t think some executive at Dell (which has spent the last 4 years upping their game with beautifully designed XPS models that attract premium prices) has an MacBook Air on his or her desk and thinks that they need something to compete with it? If the Snapdragon 888 is any indication, QualComm could at least match the performance of Tiger Lake with lower TDPs. Add Windows ARM support for x86-64 apps (coming next year), and I think we’ll see more OEMs at least experiment with Windows ARM notebooks.
You need the translation of x86-64 apps on Windows 10 for ARM64 to not suck like translation of 32-bit x86 apps currently does on it. That's a MASSIVE if.
The reason why Apple's PowerPC to Intel transition worked is that Rosetta was good enough to hold people over until software developers completed their jump to Intel. This is the same reason why the Intel to Apple Silicon transition will work all the better; Rosetta 2 is good enough to run most Intel apps BETTER THAN THEY DO ON INTEL MACS!
This is precisely why Microsoft can't sell people on Windows 10 for ARM64 (at least not with the devices that have been released with it in tow to date).
But I think that is the point for saying this is an industry game changer. That does not mean Apple will control it all - no one company can. What I see as the industry changing aspect of this - is Apple's approach leveraging ARM instruction set standard, their own SOC design and with their very focused approach towards efficiency points the way to future performance gains that are now starting to become more difficult with the current x86/CISC industry standard.
I think Qualcomm and NVIDIA are absolutely looking at this to determine what could be gained through their SOC designs/approach.
I see the primary impact is resources being rerouted to this ARM/SOC approach as a means of leveraging market opportunities. That means new entrants. Apple is just forging the path - but they won't be the only company on this path.
As a nerd and IT consumer - it offers something new and interesting to watch and look forward to.
They will never have Apple's advantage of designing both the hardware and the software. That's the secret sauce. They'll get as close as they can (and really, that's kind of like the performance differences between the SoC of an Android phone and that of an iPhone), but it will take them longer and it won't be as efficient at the end of the day.
Exactly. What Apple has done is prove the following:
- ARM is a viable alternative to x86 for desktop-class systems.
Sure. I'll buy that for a dollar.
- It's possible to build a translation layer for x86-64 to ARM that performs well.
Apples and oranges here; Rosetta 2 is not the same as what Microsoft has and the differences lie in the fact that macOS and Windows are not the same OS.
- ARM brings clear advantages on its own, but it is better to customize chips for the OS.
I think this really is the key element here. And I think this fundamentally goes against what PCs are all about ultimately. Namely, customization and upgradability. An SoC that dictates that I'm running Windows (and precludes me from running a Linux) sort of turns the PC into a Mac-esque locked down computing device. Honestly, this is why I have one last Intel Mac in my future for certain (and why any M1 purchase also made in the near future will ultimately be secondary).
I have too many thoughts on this to put in a forum reply. I wrote a blog post instead. It's long.
Is the M1 an Industry Game Changer
I absolutely love that you wrote a whole blog post reply. Kudos!
We can only hope. I say that as someone who doesn't particularly like windows, but DOES want to see the death of x86 as a platform - its such a massive bodge with 40 years worth of band-aids and sticky tape and at least 15-20 years of big security problems to unravel.
x86 DOES have security problems that Apple Silicon really won't (at least not for more than a single generation, pending some kind of Checkm8 type exploit.
But.... this is the company that heard the negative feedback from Windows 8 re the start menu and "rectified it" with a crappy start button in Windows 8.1. It took them until windows 10 to sort of get the point, and we still don't have something that was as fast, useful and easy to modify as the Windows 7/vista start menu.
Actually, Windows 10's start menu is actually MORE customizable than Windows 7's ever was. I will agree that both are better than 8.1's; though even that wasn't so bad considering the functionality was still there; it was just impossibly full screen. I cannot defend (original) Windows 8's start screen. There's just no defending it.
It's also a company that has spent the past 10 years almost seemingly deliberately crippling their ARM devices with less memory, crap screens, slow storage, etc.
HOPEFULLY this is also a wake up call to Microsoft as well - that ARM is a valid high end platform and should be treated as such. And HOPEFULLY the past decade has resulted in a shift to a more easily steered company. Microsoft has never been very fast to change course, hopefully this is changing.
Apple Silicon is a huge opportunity for Microsoft. Especially if Apple will allow (and collaborate with) them to native boot the OS. Both companies would be stupid to not make this happen.
Agreed with most of your points , one thing to note when it comes to this mega corps (i would know i worked for 2 so far) , is that the fact you dont like the HW side of the ARM devices says nothing about their cloud business or the Xbox folks , sure sometimes the CEO will decide on some big collaboration between the departments but usually its very independent work by each domain.
So in the SW OS side , I believe they see the value of running the OS on as many devices as possible and not just their own , and if the CEO insist that they go the Apple way (which Satya doesnt seems to do so far) and only use the OS on their own surface lineup , well , they will just accelerate the Chrome rise on the ARM side ,as OEM wont have the choice but to pick Google for ARM machines and windows for X86.
Microsoft CAN'T go the Apple way. No one but Apple or an entirely new player can go the Apple way. And I'm pretty sure that we're not going to see an entirely new player anytime soon. Though, if I were said entirely new player, this would be when I hit the drawing board.
People who lived through the home computer days of the 1980s must feel all excited with nostalgia for the good old days. Back then, "game changer" computer were launched every so often. The Mac is a well-known example, but the Amiga or the Atari ST (and before, the Commodore 64 and others) were similar. Each took a standard platform and did something special, either in software or in hardware.
The Apple M1 based machines hail back to that great age. Will they change the industry? I'm sure they will. Computers have been pretty dull for at least 15 years, with more exciting evolutions in certain components (SSD, GPU) than in the platform itself. This is the first time in a long while that a company actually launches a dramatic change in the platform itself.
The industry became dull because everybody needs the same software: Office, mail, ... Then came the cloud, which on one hand made the platform less relevant, because you can run all that software in a browser if you want (and if it works for you). And that fact has re-enabled innovation on the platform side. Which is pretty cool. There's a pendulum between the user's device and the server/cloud, which has gone from stupid terminals (Unix, 1970s), to home computers, back to database servers (1990s), back to the PC (late 90s), back to web apps/cloud/... The focus could shift back to the PC side if the other hardware manufacturers need to play catch-up with Apple on the M1.
I think you make a good point here. The end user's hardware is becoming less and less important in the Windows world with the advent of thin clients and virtualization. This is something Apple has never prioritized. They see themselves as a device company, through and through. I do believe that, at least for the Mac, they ought to consider supporting their OS running on a VDI (hell, on Mac hardware if it absolutely has to) such that, if one had to, they could even use a recent era (2018-2020) Intel MacBook Air as the mobile thin client and have performance be night and day better than how that Mac runs ordinarily.
