181–190 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It will obviously be an ARM transition not x86: https://medium.com/@Jernfrost/in-3-years-apple-will-switch-f...
What is so "obvious" about it?
> "A decision to go with ARM technology in computers might lend it credibility where it has failed to gain a foothold so far." > "Apple is working on a new software platform, internally dubbed Marzipan, for release as early as this year that would allow users to run iPhone and iPad apps on Macs" Two things here: 1) I'm OK with breaking the Intel near-monopoly on x86. I'm not OK with moving to a walled garden where Ap…
Right now many new desktop apps are just badly ported web apps wrapped in electron. They are slow and eat a lot of memory as all of their UI is a being rendered in a glorified standalone chrome tab.
This is less about iOS apps on OSX and more about making it easier for the iOS developer ecosystem to build desktop apps. Right now it’s web teams that are building desktop apps because for most companies it’s too expensive to hire a dedicated desktop team. Even big apps like slack/WhatsApp use electron.
Making it easier for iOS developers to build desktop applications with the APIs they currently use should hopefully lead to higher quality apps.
Apple has been preparing itself for independence from underlying CPU arachitecture for a while. In WWDC 2015[1], they announced bitcode. All App submissions to AppStore are compiled to to bitcode. This allows Apple to re-optimize/re-compile your app binary in the future for newer hardware without the need to submit new version of your app to the store. This allows Apple to switch to intel chip on iPhone, or switch to…
> This allows Apple to switch to intel chip on iPhone, or switch to an ARM chip on MacOS. I think you're assuming way too much. Says Chris Lattner regarding Bitcode, "It's useful for very specific, low-level kinds of enhancements, but it isn't a panacea that makes everything magically portable." [1] [1]: http://atp.fm/205-chris-lattner-interview-transcript/#bitcod...
Based on this article, it doesn't sound like Bloomberg has enough information to distinguish between Apple being committed to a transition, or Apple developing chips to improve their negotiating position with Intel. It's also very unlikely to happen on such a fast timetable; given the IP situation, it's unlikely Apple could make an x86_64 chip, and any move away from x86_64 is going to require significant work by thi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. Everything since the Pentium is still encumbered. Intel and AMD have extensive cross licensing agreements. Anyone want to build an x86_64 chip would need to either purchase a company that already had licenses or negotiate with both AMD and Intel.
Couldn't Apple easily buy AMD? (not to say they wouldn't have a million reason not too)
Intel will also lose access to AMD patents.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It does matter that the new processor is a lot more powerful and faster than the old processor. This wouldn't be the case this time.
Maybe the first few hardware revisions it won't be as performant. Its probably going to be an Armbook that will have the form factor of the Air or the Macbook but with A12 chips. The current A11s are in striking distance for performance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah. There are only three extant architectural license holders (Intel, AMD and VIA) and they're basically in a circular firing squad of patents. To make their own chips, they'd need to either license from an existing holder (which wouldn't let them tinker unless it was a partnership or they acquired the license) or they'd need to make something so incredibly great the other three would trip over themselves to use it…
If they wanted to go x86 they would just buy VIA? I think it will be aarch64
Based on this article, it doesn't sound like Bloomberg has enough information to distinguish between Apple being committed to a transition, or Apple developing chips to improve their negotiating position with Intel. It's also very unlikely to happen on such a fast timetable; given the IP situation, it's unlikely Apple could make an x86_64 chip, and any move away from x86_64 is going to require significant work by thi…
> Apple developing chips to improve their negotiating position with Intel Not necessary. They only need to ship one model of Mac Mini or any small desktop lineup with Ryzen to improve their negotiating position while still being compatible with the existing x86_64 ecosystem. So no, this is not merely a negotiation jibe. There are definite long-term prospects. We're already moving to a mobile-first design and approach…
Thankfully Apple comprises vastly smarter people than me, but I've always thought this is a bad idea.
The two interaction models are so dramatically different that I don't see how merging them makes sense. A finger is not a mouse.
Steve Jobs mentioned in interviews what a hell of a job his teams did in the initial change to x86 and the immense work it required. I wonder what he'd say in this scenario. Not saying "Steve Jobs would have NEVER allowed this apple is going to shit", simply wondering if the effort required to move to x86 should be essentially discarded (depending on the implementation) Edit: I agree with the replies, they are a good…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple did a pretty decent job when they transitioned from PPC to x86_64, it has Rosetta to translate PPC to x86. Microsoft and partners released ARM based Windows Laptops this year that can run Win32 apps in emulation. What's stopping Apple from shipping Macbooks with a custom SoC that can run existing Apps in emulation until developers can recompile? I would argue that most Air and Macbook owners aren't developers a…
And before that they successfully managed the transition from m68k to PPC. The processor doesn't matter.
Compiling for different architectures was a checkbox in ProjectBuilder (after you took care of endian issues, once). Much easier than in Xcode today.
My favorite was that they apparently shipped an additional architecture by accident: the developer tools came with one of the aforementioned architectures long after it had been officially dropped.