Thoughts about future of legacy-intel Macs versus future legacy SOC-Macs ...

[bobesch]

Oh, the new MacBookPro with SOC-processors and benchmarks going through the roof are really intriguing. Especially, since old values are back (Functions-keys, HDMI-port, SD-Slot, old keyboard-design and MagSafe).
But what about the future of Apples M1x SOC?
PowerPC got stuck with Tiger/Leopard and Classic/os9 and bright people manage to run Linux or BSD.
The (now all becoming legacy) intel Macs have the option of official or patched OSX/macOS, Windows and Linux.
But what about future M1 Macs?
How long are they covered with macOS updates.
Will there be any alternative OS (Win for Arm, Linux for Arm, anything else), that might fill the gap, whenever Apple shall drop support.
Surely the future belongs to energy-savvy SOCs, but I fear, there will be piles of electronic waste. Again.
Fortunately the vast amount of legacy intel-Macs will be embraced by the patching-OSX and Linux/Win10 community.
What's Your thoughts about this?

 

[rampancy]

It's going to be interesting to see how efforts to port Linux to Apple Silicon Macs is going to turn out. Because like with current early Intel and PPC Macs, it's likely what's going to majorly help extend the usefulness and longevity of these Macs after Apple stops supporting them with OS updates.

And I still think a future where we'll be able to install some form of Linux as a drop-in OS X replacement on an M1 MacBook Air may be possible, with the rest of the industry potentially starting to move to a more ARM-based/post-X86 future (between Google and Microsoft's own custom ARM silicon, and Intel apparently positioning itself to a future where it will be fabbing other companies' designs). Even though there will be a lack of uniformity among ARM implementations across platforms, there presumably would be potential for cross-polination among projects seeking to port Linux to differing ARM platforms.

The alternative and/or parallel alternative will be some kind of situation analagous to what we have/had with projects like TenFourFox, trying to provide updated functionality on older hardware (albeit constrained by the limits of current gen Apple Silicon vs. whatever the state of computer hardware and the Internet will be in 10-15 years' time). I think it will also definitely lead to a major eWaste issue, but more due to the problem of a shrinking Right to Repair in consumer computer hardware.

As for the longevity of M1/AS Macs; going on Apple's history with OS support on its different processor architectures, I'd speculate at current AS Macs will get support for five or so major versions of OS X, though who knows what branding choice will be for macOS at that point.

Honestly - for me personally, I'm more concerned about an issue like the butterfly keyboard, or the dedicated GPUs on the MacBook Pros turning my Mac into a brick in the future. I really don't mind an eventual lack of OS support; that can be solved. But if it turns out that the M1 chips in the current gen AS Macs have some kind of manufacturing errata that leads to them dying in 4-5 years' time, that's a different matter altogether.

 

[Amethyst1]

Will there be any alternative OS (Win for Arm, Linux for Arm, anything else), that might fill the gap, whenever Apple shall drop support.

Linux has been running on ARM since the mid-1990s, and as pointed out by @rampancy Asahi Linux is making promising progress on ARM Macs. How well (and for how long) they’re eventually going to be supported remains to be seen, but it’s a start. ARM is also a much more wide-spread architecture than PowerPC ever was. Pretty much every "embedded" device (routers etc.), smartphone and tablet out there uses that architecture.

 

[alectrona6400]

ah yes, can't wait to put a """"totally awesome"""" arch rice on my BRAND NEW macbook! /s

i'm sure one day we could have linux running on these marvels of machinery, but seeing as how these have become so similar to iOS devices, it could be a little difficult. also, hardware support could be rather sparse anyway. ppc macs had good hardware support, but later on they had issues. my concern involves how long developers will keep supporting the hardware.

 

[Certificate of Excellence]

Some smart people will figure out how to put an alternative OS on Apple silicon SOC macs. I have no doubt about that and with that, the same legacy Early Apple silicon community will appear as we have with Early intel, PowerPC, 68k beige scourge etc. I don't think the shift will increase the amount of ewaste going to landfill or recycler than what is already happening. If Apple were truly altruistic, with their impressive new power, they'd extend usable life on these macs. Instead of 4 or 5 iterations of macOS, plan for 8 or 10. That would make a real statement towards planetary stewardship, reducing ewaste, and creating serious value for their customer.

Cooked apples will not do this, but we can create the Apple we wish we had in our dreams can't we?

 

[alectrona6400]

look at some later PPC macs and some earlier intel ones. my 2008 macbook got TWO offically supported releases because intel couldn't be bothered to make a proper 64 bit driver for the x3100. i do understand powerpc's end of life but those deserved the overall smoothness of snow leopard. as for the 2008 macbooks, those could run anything up to like 10.11.6 just FINE, but intel did not want to cooperate. that's their fault and not apple's though

 

[Amethyst1]

as for the 2008 macbooks, those could run anything up to like 10.11.6 just FINE, but intel did not want to cooperate. that's their fault and not apple's though

A 2008 (45nm CPU) Mac will actually go past 10.11.6. And I do blame Apple for using Intel's crappy integrated graphics in e.g. those white MacBooks. Sure, you get what you pay for, but... come on! Intel's GPUs sucked royally prior to Sandy Bridge (2011).

If Apple were truly altruistic, with their impressive new power, they'd extend usable life on these macs. Instead of 4 or 5 iterations of macOS, plan for 8 or 10.

Yeah, like 2015's El Capitan officially supporting 2007 iMacs and MBPs!

 

[Certificate of Excellence]

look at some later PPC macs and some earlier intel ones. my 2008 macbook got TWO offically supported releases because intel couldn't be bothered to make a proper 64 bit driver for the x3100. i do understand powerpc's end of life but those deserved the overall smoothness of snow leopard. as for the 2008 macbooks, those could run anything up to like 10.11.6 just FINE, but intel did not want to cooperate. that's their fault and not apple's though

Interesting that you bring this up. This is a perfect example of why Apple could IMO make real strides in increasing the value prospect of their machines with in house Apple Silicon. Intel F'd with with Apple and the 2008 macbooks which impacted us (me as I own two of them) - And in perfect free market fashion, the early intel mac community started to form as we saw the writing on the wall and smart people built installers that allowed us to upgrade those macs (06-08 mb, mbp, cmp, etc.) artificialy bottlenecked at Lion to be upgraded all the way to ElCap.

Apple now has a new level of control over their engineering and designs with Apple Silicon which insulates the impact third party partners (like Intel for example) will have on their future designs and production. This combined with the absolute powerhouse Apple Silicon has proved to be I believe provides Apple not only with an opportunity to build the best machines they have ever made but to do this while extending support significantly on their machines should they choose to do so.

At the end of the day, people are still going to be writing emails, papers, researching, watching YT etc - for all intents and purposes are mundane computer functions that we have proven can easily be done on 2008 era Apple engineering - computers that are 1/2 at best of what current M1 is. Time will tell and a big part of it I believe will be how much money Apple generates from their monthly service ecosystem. The more money they generate from the services side of their business, the less they are dependent on unit sales and the more it makes monetary strategic sense for Apple to extend out the macOS iterations available to said machines (& with it, access to that monthly income for Apple). Again, we'll see. I dont have much hope for this but the possibility is there.

 

[alectrona6400]

A 2008 (45nm CPU) Mac will actually go past 10.11.6. And I do blame Apple for using Intel's crappy integrated graphics in e.g. those white MacBooks. Sure, you get what you pay for, but... come on! Intel's GPUs sucked royally prior to Sandy Bridge (2011).

yeah, i don't blame you. shoulda put at least whatever ati or even nvidia had at the time that would be on the same rank as the 9400M... yes, the chips can go past 10.11.6 but apple stopped there for a good chunk of laptops so i thought that would have been what they did if they used a better card...

 

[Amethyst1]

This is a perfect example of why Apple could IMO make real strides in increasing the value prospect of their machines with in house Apple Silicon. [...] to do this while extending support significantly on their machines should they choose to do so.

Yes, but why would they choose to do so? They're after profit after all. Artificially rendering machines obsolete will make many average Jane and John Does run and buy an amazing, awesome, breathtaking etc. new Mac, increasing their profit.

 

[Certificate of Excellence]

Yes, but why would they choose to do so? They're after profit after all. Artificially rendering machines obsolete will make many average Jane and John Does run and buy an amazing, awesome, breathtaking etc. new Mac, increasing their profit.

That's a great question. What Im talking about is counter intuitive to traditional wigdet markets. It's about Apples new & evolving service markets. They are absolutely evolving from a purely single sale unit/widget sales company to a monthly fee/income services business. The possibility of this trend is tied directly to how much money Apple generates from their monthly service ecosystem. The more money Apple generates from the services side of their business, the less they are dependent on unit sales income and the more it makes monetary strategic sense for Apple to extend out the macOS iterations available to said machines. This provides their monthly fee services customers with access (via their device) to the services they pay for & in doing so ensures that Apple gets paid for said services each month.

They have proven this model to be wildly successful with the iphone. For example, my iphone 6s from 2015 is still getting updates and fully functional in October of 2021. A similar model can absolutely exist within macOS and their computers.

In short, the services are the money maker and the computer is the doorway. Keep the door open (and money flowing) by maximising access to current macOS iterations via the power (& assumed longevity) of Apple silicon.

 

[Amethyst1]

They have proven this model to be wildly successful with the iphone. For example, my iphone 6s from 2015 is still getting updates and fully functional in October of 2021. A similar model can absolutely exist within macOS and their computers.

macOS Monterey still supports the eight-year-old “trash can” Mac Pro so a similar model does already exist, but is not providing equally long support for every Mac - for reasons that can sometimes only be described as purely artificial.

 

[Certificate of Excellence]

macOS Monterey still supports the eight-year-old “trash can” Mac Pro so a similar model does already exist, but is not providing equally long support for every Mac.

Yep, I suppose a better way to express what I am getting at (& I did not express this earlier) is to have such a goal across the board from imac to mac pro; consumer grade to professional grade. To date, that idea has been inconsistent as a brand. I hypothesize that Apple silicon (and the end-to-end control they have with it) could make that easier for Apple to achieve should they desire to and to that end, continuing their trend towards subscription revenues should make the money math make sense as a push for investors.

 

[Amethyst1]

[...] to have such a goal across the board from imac to mac pro; consumer grade to professional grade. To date, that idea has been inconsistent as a brand. I hypothesize that Apple silicon (and the end-to-end control they have with it) could make that easier for Apple to achieve should they desire to [...]

Maybe I'm having a go at being cynical but I have a feeling that the reason they're not providing (at least) eight years of support across the board is not that they "can't" because of Intel or something, but that they choose not to.

Example: Monterey officially runs on the following (and, of course, newer) Macs...

• iMac: Late 2015 (Broadwell+iGPU in 21.5")
• iMac Pro: all
• MacBook: Early 2016 (Skylake+iGPU)
• MacBook Air: Early 2015 (Broadwell+iGPU)
• MacBook Pro: Early 2015 (Haswell+iGPU in 15")
• Mac Pro: Late 2013 (Ivy Bridge)
• Mac mini: Late 2014 (Haswell+iGPU)

That raises the following questions for me, since support for the respective CPU/GPU is clearly present.

• Why isn't the Late 2013 iMac (Haswell+iGPU in low-end 21.5") supported?
• Why isn't the Early 2015 MacBook (Broadwell+iGPU) supported?
• Why isn't the Mid 2013 MacBook Air (Haswell+iGPU) supported?
• Why isn't the Late 2013/Mid 2014 MacBook Pro (Haswell+iGPU in all but high-end 15") supported?

 

[Certificate of Excellence]

Maybe I'm having a go at being cynical but I have a feeling that the reason they're not providing (at least) eight years of support across the board is not that they "can't" because of Intel or something, but that they choose not to.

Example: Monterey officially runs on the following (and, of course, newer) Macs:

• iMac: Late 2015 (Broadwell+iGPU in 21.5")
• iMac Pro: all
• MacBook: Early 2016 (Skylake+iGPU)
• MacBook Air: Early 2015 (Broadwell+iGPU)
• MacBook Pro: Early 2015 (Haswell+iGPU in 15")
• Mac Pro: Late 2013 (Ivy Bridge)
• Mac mini: Late 2014 (Haswell+iGPU)

That raises the following questions, since support for the respective CPU/GPU is clearly present:

• Why isn't the Late 2013 iMac (Haswell+iGPU in low-end 21.5") supported?
• Why isn't the Early 2015 MacBook (Broadwell+iGPU) supported?
• Why isn't the Mid 2013 MacBook Air (Haswell+iGPU) supported?
• Why isn't the Late 2013/Mid 2014 MacBook Pro (Haswell+iGPU in all but high-end 15") supported?

I agree with your sentiment. I agree that Apple is profit motivated as any business should be. What I’ve spoken to earlier is one possible explanation in how profit motive ie services vs widgets can evolve business strategy and how Apple silicon can provide the power and leverage to deploy said strategy assuming Apple feels the market is mature and to your point, if they want to do it.

 

[Amethyst1]

Why isn't the Late 2013 iMac (Haswell+iGPU in low-end 21.5") supported?

Why isn't the Late 2013/Mid 2014 MacBook Pro (Haswell+iGPU in all but high-end 15") supported?

Well, it turns out Monterey no longer likes the NVIDIA GPUs that some configs of these have, so presumably the entire series was dropped for consistency. That begs the question why support for these GPUs was dropped.

 

[MysticCow]

Well, it turns out Monterey no longer likes the NVIDIA GPUs that some configs of these have, so presumably the entire series was dropped for consistency. That begs the question why support for these GPUs was dropped.

Aren’t Apple and Nvidia at war over some stupid crap?

 

[Amethyst1]

Aren’t Apple and Nvidia at war over some stupid crap?

Yep. Still no excuse for dropping support for perfectly good hardware LOL!

 

[repairedCheese]

Well, it turns out Monterey no longer likes the NVIDIA GPUs that some configs of these have, so presumably the entire series was dropped for consistency. That begs the question why support for these GPUs was dropped.

Oh, this one is relatively easy to explain. They're dropping support for Nvidia Kepler hardware, mostly because Nvidia just dropped support for it.

 

[EugW]

Maybe I'm having a go at being cynical but I have a feeling that the reason they're not providing (at least) eight years of support across the board is not that they "can't" because of Intel or something, but that they choose not to.

Example: Monterey officially runs on the following (and, of course, newer) Macs...

• iMac: Late 2015 (Broadwell+iGPU in 21.5")
• iMac Pro: all
• MacBook: Early 2016 (Skylake+iGPU)
• MacBook Air: Early 2015 (Broadwell+iGPU)
• MacBook Pro: Early 2015 (Haswell+iGPU in 15")
• Mac Pro: Late 2013 (Ivy Bridge)
• Mac mini: Late 2014 (Haswell+iGPU)

That raises the following questions for me, since support for the respective CPU/GPU is clearly present.

• Why isn't the Late 2013 iMac (Haswell+iGPU in low-end 21.5") supported?
• Why isn't the Early 2015 MacBook (Broadwell+iGPU) supported?
• Why isn't the Mid 2013 MacBook Air (Haswell+iGPU) supported?
• Why isn't the Late 2013/Mid 2014 MacBook Pro (Haswell+iGPU in all but high-end 15") supported?

In addition to hardware compatibility considerations, it's also about age of the machine. In that context I'm pleasantly surprised they're supporting the 2013 Mac Pro. I mean they should since they're expensive machines with high end hardware, but in the past a lot of the pro machines got end-of-lifed around the same time as the consumer machines.

As for the MacBook 2015, I wonder if it's partially due to speed. That thing is quite slow.

Anyhow, for my MacBook 2017, I hope to have OS support until macOS 13 at least, taking me to summer 2023 for the last point update. If so, I would expect to get 3 more years of security updates, taking me to 2026, for 9 years of support at least. Not too shabby. Same goes for my iMac 2017, although the iMac is much, much faster than the MacBook obviously and I think it may possibly get one more year of support than the 2017 MacBook.

Geekbench 5 CPU performance:

2015 MacBook Core M-5Y31: ~600/1150
2016 MacBook Core m3-6Y30: ~600/1250 <-- Somewhat improved codec support, but performance still lacking.
2017 MacBook Core m3-7Y32: ~800/1600 <-- Big jump in CPU performance. Much improved codec support.

2015 MacBook Air Core i5-5250U: ~700/1400

2014 Mac mini Core i5-4260U: ~670/1350

2015 iMac Core i5-5250U: ~700/1450 <-- Same chip as in MacBook Air, but slightly faster in that enclosure.

What can we conclude from this? Not too sure but I suspect that the 2016 MacBook, 2015 MacBook Air, 2014 Mac mini, and 2015 iMac will be dropped next year. They will keep the 2017 models. The wildcard is the 2017 MacBook Air, but since that's essentially the 2015 model they may just drop it too.

IOW, I'm guessing the hard cutoff at some point soon may be hardware HEVC support, either from Kaby Lake with iGPU or else AMD cards in iMac Pro.

 

[Amethyst1]

In addition to hardware compatibility considerations, it's also about age of the machine. In that context I'm pleasantly surprised they're supporting the 2013 Mac Pro.

Not at all surprising IMO. Keep in mind the 2013 MP was sold as "current" until the 2019 MP came out, and I suppose they didn't want to piss off those who bought a 2013 MP shortly before the 2019 came by giving them only two years of full OS support.

As for the MacBook 2015, I wonder if it's partially due to speed. That thing is quite slow.

It is, but I suspect it's because the 2015 MB was replaced in 2016, whereas the 2015 MBA got a minor speed-bump in 2017 and was sold until the 2018 MBA appeared. Same deal as with the 2013 MP.

What can we conclude from this? Not too sure but I suspect that the 2016 MacBook, 2015 MacBook Air, 2014 Mac mini, and 2015 iMac will be dropped next year.

The 2014 MM was sold until 2018, so I'd not be entirely surprised to see it being dragged along for another two years or so. 5-6 years of full OS support seems to be common, with some "lucky" machines getting 7 or 8.

In any case, only time will tell

2015 iMac Core i5-5250U: ~700/1450 <-- Same chip as in MacBook Air, but slightly faster in that enclosure.

...paired with a 1080p display and a slow-as-hell 2.5" 5400rpm hard drive. These low-end iMacs are a sad joke.

 

[EugW]

Not at all surprising IMO. Keep in mind the 2013 MP was sold as "current" until the 2019 MP came out, and I suppose they didn't want to piss off those who bought a 2013 MP shortly before the 2019 came by giving them only two years of full OS support.


It is, but I suspect it's because the 2015 MB was replaced in 2016, whereas the 2015 MBA got a minor speed-bump in 2017 and was sold until the 2018 MBA appeared. Same deal as with the 2013 MP.


The 2014 MM was sold until 2018, so I'd not be entirely surprised to see it being dragged along for another two years or so. 5-6 years of full OS support seems to be common, with some "lucky" machines getting 7 or 8.

In any case, only time will tell


...paired with a 1080p display and a slow-as-hell 2.5" 5400rpm hard drive. These low-end iMacs are a sad joke.

All good points.

Expanding on that, the good news for me is that my 2017 MacBook wasn't discontinued until 2019. Still, I think the 2013 Mac Pro may lose OS support next year (aside from security updates), but I think the 2017 MacBook continue to get OS support next year and maybe the year after that.

 

[Amethyst1]

I idly wonder if we'll ever see a 12" MB with ASi. That's the perfect size and weight for me. I don't want a 13.3" "ultraportable"!

 

[rampancy]

I idly wonder if we'll ever see a 12" MB with ASi. That's the perfect size and weight for me. I don't want a 13.3" "ultraportable"!

Yes, I was at first so disheartened that Apple never released a true successor to the 12" PowerBook, which has to be right up there with the A1181 and the Sawtooth as one of my all-time favorite Macs.

I was then really excited when the 11" MacBook Air came out; that Mac is also one of all-time favorites, and was my daily driver for many years. (Incidentally, it's nuts to see even 2010 11" Airs commanding prices of $400+ on the second-hand goods sites in my city.)

Sadly, I don't think we'll ever really see a return of either of those Macs, with the iPad Pro + Magic Keyboard seemingly filling that niche in Apple's lineup (in their eyes, at least). With the lines continuing to blur between the iPad and the Mac at the more ultra-portable end of the lineup, it wouldn't surprise me if we saw a future 11"/12" ASi-powered iPad with a version of iPadOS that could run full desktop Mac apps.

 

[Amethyst1]

(Incidentally, it's nuts to see even 2010 11" Airs commanding prices of $400+ on the second-hand goods sites in my city.)

Wow. That's insane given how slow and limited in terms of expansion possibilities those are (unfortunately)