yeah to be honest it seems to me like macOS development is not as high priority as iOS/ipadOS for Apple. I'm not sure about how much profits macbooks bring to Apple compared to iphones/ipads. so while I agree it would make sense for Apple to use their own ARM chips on new macbooks, it will also require significant investment on the software part. which, given how Catalina is being developed, is not a given.
would you trust a first-generation ARM macbook on a first-generation ARM macOS? Apple can't even fix the bugs in macOS now, I have little confidence they could make the transition very smooth. it would take a year at least.
on the other hand bringing more and more desktop features to ipadOS seems like a clear win. the need for a Macbook Air in the future might just disappear given that ipads will be more and more powerful and feature-rich.
even now, with the bad heating issues, most people recomment the macbook Air for those who mostly want to do web browsing, word processing, simple stuff. but you can already do most of this stuff on an ipad. now imagine ipadOS in 2 years: I'm betting it will be possible to do more and more. and fewer people will actually really need macOS.
if I had $100mil to spend on either development of ipadOS or porting macOS to ARM, I'd definitely spend them on developing ipadOS. intel processors suck? bring AMD to macbooks.
Yeah, I think it's also worth considering whether or not it's worth the investment for Apple at this point, especially now that Intel kind of has their act together and AMD is releasing compelling products. You can put together an Air with a A14X but it won't do things consumers expect it to do. And Intel actually has good products in that space now and in the near future.
Switching to AMD would still likely be a big chunk of work (both for Apple optimising the OS, and for developers updating apps) if you wanted to maximise the benefits. I think too any people see AMD as an easy drop in replacement, but despite being x86 their chips are still going to be very different to Intel's. Unlike Windows which is designed to try and get on with all platforms as best it can, MacOS is a finely tuned OS which has only had to run on Intel chips for over a decade. Then of course if you put in the effort, you'd be at the mercy of AMD staying ahead of Intel in the future. While AMD absolutely deserve to do well with these 4000 series chips, I don't think they're a good fit for Apple that likes µm precise optimisation of hardware and software interoperation. Nor for that matter are Intel if they're not going to be consistently pushing out the best performing chips going forward.
Much easier than ARM, but these concerns are fair. AMD also only makes sense in one machine (the MBP 15) right now, which means they would be optimizing the MBP 13 and Air around Ice/Tiger Lake and the 15 around Renoir/the alleged RDNA2 APU going forward.
I will say I think AMD being a poor fit for precise optimization is something that is changing. AMD has always been very willing to give Apple exactly the GPU they need. And while Intel used to be happy to give Apple a special 28W chip, it's taken them quite a while to get that chip to Apple this time. On the other hand, AMD's ability to deliver has really improved since they switched to TSMC -- a reliable manufacturer Apple is familiar with. And AMD's work with ASUS shows they are finally starting to work directly with ODM's in a way they haven't before.
If AMD could get a 5nm APU out next year, I think that would be hard for Apple to ignore. Otherwise, it may depend on whether Intel's 7nm node is a success.
Well, here it is. MBP 13 with Ice Lake incoming. Be sure to grab the model with the 1068G7.
Side note, but does anyone else find the processors Apple is including with some of these machines in the base models distressing? Like the Air starts with a nonfunctional two core Ice Lake processor with UHD graphics, and now we're using 15W parts in the MBP13?
