Universal Apps vs Intel

[Tech198]

Was just reading someting on ArsTechnia :-https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2020/11/google-chrome-is-available-as-an-apple-m1-native-app-today/

"Google presents Chrome for download as either an x86_64 package or an M1 native option—which comes across as a little odd, since the M1 native version is actually a universal binary, which works on either M1 or traditional Intel Macs. Presumably, Google is pushing separate downloads due to the much smaller file size necessary for the x86_64-only package—the universal binary contains both x86_64 and ARM applications, and weighs in at 165MiB to the Intel-only package's 96MiB."

There would e no real reason then would there... In that case, why not just released a native only version. (no universal), and one x86 versions?

I know Apple wants to streamline this universal app process as "one app only", but if your not gonna be using it, why make the file size bigger when clearly not needed? plus, it saves on bandwidth as we've always been used to in the past. I reckon this is just to help developers only, as it sure doesn't help consumers.(well, i guess it odes,n ot not when getting hold of it)

I now if ou have the bandiwth available, there is no real issue on consumer side, but again why download someting bigger then what you need to use it on only? I see the convience, jst not the practical way why anyone would wanna do that other then "Its new"

 

[Einz]

I remembered during the last transition of their CPUs. The was an app that stripped out PowerPc codes. I don know if that can be done for Apple M1?

 

[dmccloud]

There is a fundamental misunderstanding of how a universal build actually works. Let's say that I download the universal installer for Chrome to a USB-C thumb drive and install it on both an Intel and M1 Mac. The installer will only install the appropriate components for that system's architecture. This would leave me with an x86 build on the Intel Mac and an ARM-based build on the M1. Some of the code is unchanged between the two versions, which is why the universal build is smaller than separate x86 and M1 builds would be. Another consideration is that for a mass deployment (i.e., in an office setting), having the one universal build means that from an IT perspective you do not have to keep track of which machines run which installer, since the one download supports both platforms.

 

[deeddawg]

There is a fundamental misunderstanding of

You, sir, have just described 90% of today’s Internet.

Bravo!

???

 

[Gnattu]

The installer will only install the appropriate components for that system's architecture.

Not always. The Google Chrome for M1 contains both x86_64 and arm64 executables.

 

[Gnattu]

why make the file size bigger when clearly not needed?

Multiple reasons. "Intel version" and "Apple version" is confusing users in the first place, although the ones who is buying M1 now clearly knows what platform they are on, the situation may change in the future. But I do agree that extra file size for another architecture can be reduced if it is not needed, but Apple want to ease the transition by using the same binary.

I reckon this is just to help developers only, as it sure doesn't help consumers.

No, it does not help developers. It is not easier to make a universal binary than for 2 native versions, especially if you are using alternate toolchains other than Xcode.

 

[matrix07]

just uninstalled Chrome due to this tweet

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1337832978253230081

My battery life is so much better now.

 

[scgf]

How to Manage the Secret Software That Google Chrome Installs on Your Mac

______________________ All Mac users should be aware that when they install Google Chrome on their Mac, additional software is installed that is able to conduct automatic updates. In general, this is a Good Thing™, except for two things. 1. The user isn't notified that the software is being...

www.macobserver.com

 

[DeanL]

There is a fundamental misunderstanding of how a universal build actually works. [...] The installer will only install the appropriate components for that system's architecture.

That's a big fat lie LOL, for starters 99% of Mac apps do not even have an installer, like Chrome.

 

[chrfr]

There is a fundamental misunderstanding of how a universal build actually works. Let's say that I download the universal installer for Chrome to a USB-C thumb drive and install it on both an Intel and M1 Mac. The installer will only install the appropriate components for that system's architecture.

This isn’t the case with Chrome and is not the case with most apps I’ve been looking at so far. Apps like Microsoft Office, Firefox, Adobe Lightroom, and all of Apple’s apps on the App Store all install as universal versions, not as platform specific versions.

 

[jdb8167]

This isn’t the case with Chrome and is not the case with most apps I’ve been looking at so far. Apps like Microsoft Office, Firefox, Adobe Lightroom, and all of Apple’s apps on the App Store all install as universal versions, not as platform specific versions.

Stripping unused architectures is something Apple could do in an installer or when downloading from the App Store but as far as I can tell they aren't doing that. I have several Apple Silicon apps from the App Store and they are all universal. Perhaps in the future when Apple starts deprecating Intel Macs then they will turn that on but not right now.

 

[jeanlain]

Universal apps lets you use an M1 Mac's drive as a boot drive for an intel Mac (target disk), or it lets your restore an intel Mac by using an M1 Mac.
Or simply transfer apps between these Macs in both directions. Users don't have to worry about architectures.

 

[leman]

Universal apps lets you use an M1 Mac's drive as a boot drive for an intel Mac (target disk), or it lets your restore an intel Mac by using an M1 Mac.
Or simply transfer apps between these Macs in both directions. Users don't have to worry about architectures.

Exactly this. Universal binaries do take more space, but they „just work“. This is all about user convenience. The extra storage overhead of 500MB or so for your entire application library is negligible.