Ina Fried, for Axois, about Apple’s expected plan to move Macs to its own in-house ARM chips:
Although the company has yet to say so publicly, developers and Intel officials have privately told Axios they expect such a move as soon as next year.
I’m quite excited about this move. Apple has sway in the industry, and anything that lights a fire under Intel and the x86 archicture in general can only be seen as a good thing – more competition is always better.
Apple is back to “Think Different”.
This isn’t thinking different at all, it is just doing what Linux and Windows (and ChromeOS) already do: Running the same software on different kinds of hardware
2020 makes sense for me for the MacBook “Nothing”. That machines CPU could easily be replaced by an A14X in 2020 without suffering anything in performance at all. I suspect a gradual migration to ARM, not a big bang scenario. The Mac Pro and IMac Pro will be running x86 (amd64) for a couple more years after 2020 at least
Huh? Once the transition is complete macOS will be back to running on one type of hardware so they are not doing what other operating systems are doing. Hell, macOS doesn’t even run officially on the same hardware unless it says Apple on the front of the box.
This transition will be much longer than their previous CPU swaps. Before, when Apple went from 68K -> PPC -> Intel, the entire line moved over very quickly, and the OS pretty well forced the hand.
I don’t see that happening now. Short term I’d see the ARM systems on the lightweight portable market (MacBooks essentially), and maybe (maybe) a Mac Mini ARM.
But Intel will stay pretty entrenched in their “Pro” stuff for some time, and the vendors will just have to have the code co-exist on the two architectures for awhile. There will be two versions of Mac OS, one for each platform. Mac OS has had a “Fat App” concept since NeXTStep and the 90’s, but there will still be two different kernels. Perhaps both in the same distribution, but there’s going to be two versions of the OS.
The ARM machines MIGHT be able to run Intel code in a simulator, but it’ll be just really bad value. Folks will want native apps quickly.
Well, mostly not that different; mostly the same code.
Generally, regarding the news, Macs will be Intel-based longer than they were 68k or PPC, so it’s high time I guess… (gotta build that hackintosh while they are still viable)
I guess this would mean an end to all the hackintosh in the the next few years. And once again the latest Intel Chip Macs would also become obsolete like they did with G4/G5 processor Macs back in 2006.
Yes, I would think so…
This trend of creating devices/SoCs that can only run one OS is really bad.
The real trend here is brands vertically integrating into their supply chain, forwards and backwards. It’s going on everywhere. Brands become manufacturers, Brands become retailers. Retailers become brands. Computer makers become chip makers. Intel may need to start building computers and OSs to stay relevant. Or build ARM and RISC-V.
I don’t see Intel needing to create their own PCs/servers and if they did I am pretty they will be able run any OS the consumer/business would like (even if not officially supported by them). Apple could get away with doing it because their desktop products have a loyal user base that have more niche needs (aka also means higher margins for Apple). Intel is everywhere and more general purpose and selling chips has higher margins than selling systems or end user products.
That is their niche right there – open OS machines – all OSs officially supported.. Technically a lot of PCs are / were open OS, but imagine if someone did it properly! This could be the disruption we need to break monopolies.
Maybe Intel is already doing a move, but on the FPGA industry since it aquired Altera. I think those programmable gateway boards will be pretty useful on a not-so-far future…
https://blog.esciencecenter.nl/why-use-an-fpga-instead-of-a-cpu-or-gpu-b234cd4f309c
Quite interesting