Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Osborning the Mac, or not

mondaynote.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 253 posts

Re: Osborning the Mac, or not

#61

Post by C1sc0cat »

pier25 wrote: post #53
bitwize wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're talking about Apple here, the company that pulled off two seamless architecture transitions for its desktop platform -- something I believe no other desktop vendor even attempted. ARM Macs will do just fine. Backwards compatibility will be close to 100%. x86-64 apps may run a bit slow, but native software will benefit from running on the most powerful laptop money can buy, period.

I envy your enthusiasm. Apple has not been quite as attentive regarding the Mac as it used to when those transitions happenned. I do believe ARM Macs will do fine, eventually.

Even for the Mac Pro workstations? I bet Apple Audio and VFX shops will not be happy

Re: Osborning the Mac, or not

#62

Post by whywhywhywhy »

jmull wrote: post #40

I'm pretty convinced Apple's transition strategy for existing software will be "Recompile, retest, republish": No built-in emulation or other support for x64 binaries. In the past transitions they had to have a strong compatibility story. But I think that's not nearly as important anymore. For software that is being actively developed, releasing fat ARM/x64 (or maybe fat bitcode/x64) binaries can be worked into a rel…

> But I think that's not nearly as important anymore

I used Macs during Classic to OSX and PPC to Intel transitions but I'd argue it's actually way more important this time.

Back during previous transitions fully native apps were really the only option but now...

Almost all modern actively developed software on Macs is just electron wrappers Only a few exceptions of actively developed cocoa apps come to mind, Sketch, Omni Group, etc.

The other half of the Mac ecosystem is exist outside of electron apps or cocoa good citizens and that's old but essential power user applications the Adobe suite, 3d software, science software and audio software which all have extensive custom Intel code and all the plugin infrastructure runs on Intel.

To bring After Effects, for example to ARM is going to be an insane amount of work and a lot of it is going to sit outside of Adobe's control because so much of the application relies on plugins which all have to be recompiled too.

I feel Apple might have lost the plot here a bit and has convinced themselves that this functionality vacuum is going to be filled with catalyst iPad ports, reality is if the computer can't run these apps people require for their jobs then they'll just buy windows machines.

Re: Osborning the Mac, or not

#63

Post by tonyedgecombe »

whywhywhywhy wrote: post #62
jmull wrote: post #40

I'm pretty convinced Apple's transition strategy for existing software will be "Recompile, retest, republish": No built-in emulation or other support for x64 binaries. In the past transitions they had to have a strong compatibility story. But I think that's not nearly as important anymore. For software that is being actively developed, releasing fat ARM/x64 (or maybe fat bitcode/x64) binaries can be worked into a rel…

> But I think that's not nearly as important anymore I used Macs during Classic to OSX and PPC to Intel transitions but I'd argue it's actually way more important this time. Back during previous transitions fully native apps were really the only option but now... Almost all modern actively developed software on Macs is just electron wrappers Only a few exceptions of actively developed cocoa apps come to mind, Sketch,…

Almost all modern actively developed software on Macs is just electron wrappers

Which is exactly what Apple doesn't want to see prospering on its platform.

Re: Osborning the Mac, or not

#64

Post by tonyedgecombe »

CapriciousCptl wrote: post #31

I don’t think the switch is about Apple providing better performance, thermal efficiency or anything like that. I think it’s simply cost control. Consumer Intel chips haven’t improved much better in a long time but they still command an enormous profit margin. And since Apple controls the compiler toolchain along with the OS and much of the other hardware, it can make the switch without the consumers it cares about t…

Apple have often suffered when it comes to external dependencies. That might have been when IBM failed to keep PowerPC competitive, Microsoft Office lagged on the Mac or now when Intel are struggling. The rumours are that several Mac releases have been delayed because of supply problems, the newly released 13" MacBook is shipping with previous revision chips in the low end models.

When you take this into account it's easy to see why dumping Intel is attractive to them.

Re: Osborning the Mac, or not

#65

Post by tosers4 »

greedo wrote: post #24
jedberg wrote: post #19

Everyone here is very positive that the transition will go smoothly based on their last few transitions being fairly successful. I'm a bit more skeptical. Back then, their desktop/laptop business line was much more important to them. They needed it to go well. They were also a niche player and couldn't afford to lose more market share to PCs/Windows. But now, they barely care about their desktop/laptop revenue (being…

This is ridiculous. Mac revenue was roughly $25 BILLION dollars in 2019. The idea that they don't care about it is simply wrong. Same with the idea that they don't care about marketshare. Of course they care more about iDevices than the Mac. It brings in roughly 5x as much money as the Mac. But Apple can chew gum and walk at the same time.

>But Apple can chew gum and walk at the same time.

No. Look at MS and the difference in quality. They are both samey in the $$$ department, but MS much larger focus and enormous dev base makes it not such a nice thing for products. Apple reduced scope is what lets them have quality thing. They do not have much manpower (I mean, they are one of the few trillion dollar company, their human resources don't look like that), spreading focus would harm quality. Their iDevices makes 5x as much money, that's where their eyes are, that focus can't be made smaller for an "infirior product" money-wise.

Re: Osborning the Mac, or not

#66

Post by TMWNN »

egypturnash wrote: post #4

I’m just real glad that my personal upgrade cycle is at the point where I won’t be looking for a new computer until at least the second year of ARM Macs, when most show-stopping bugs should be ironed out of the OS and the Adobe tools I spend most of my work time in. I was an early adopter of PPC and OSX, I’m not gonna sit there trying to get work done via the old-cpu emulation again.

>I was an early adopter of PPC and OSX, I’m not gonna sit there trying to get work done via the old-cpu emulation again.

The lowest spec of the very first PowerPC Macs (the 6100) was faster than any 68K Mac, including emulated software.

The first Intel Mac Mini was faster than the G5 Mac Pro.

EDIT: Sorry, I misremembered; 68K emulation did impose a performance penalty versus contemporary 68K Macs. PowerPC-native performance was definitely faster than any 68K Mac, and developers were very good about releasing fat binaries.

Re: Osborning the Mac, or not

#67

Post by whywhywhywhy »

tonyedgecombe wrote: post #63
whywhywhywhy wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But I think that's not nearly as important anymore I used Macs during Classic to OSX and PPC to Intel transitions but I'd argue it's actually way more important this time. Back during previous transitions fully native apps were really the only option but now... Almost all modern actively developed software on Macs is just electron wrappers Only a few exceptions of actively developed cocoa apps come to mind, Sketch,…

Almost all modern actively developed software on Macs is just electron wrappers Which is exactly what Apple doesn't want to see prospering on its platform.

I'd agree 100% but the state of how janky and alien their own Catalyst ports feel don't give me much hope.

If they want this platform to remain the world class computing experience they actually have to invest in it fully not just hope that some work can be skimmed off the top of their iPad investment.

Where is the example of a best in class 2020 Mac desktop app? Because it certainly isn't News.app.

Re: Osborning the Mac, or not

#68

Post by djxfade »

yoz-y wrote: post #32
zerkten wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is likely to be yet more convergence towards iOS constraints. This seems inevitable, especially if Catalyst is central to how Apple carry out any ARM transition. It's very clear that Apple aren't catering to developers in macOS to the extent that drove OS X growth from 2004. For a time, many developers couldn't find fault with OS X and Mac hardware. I wonder how much more correction we'll see from Apple, now th…

I really hope Catalyst is a dead end and only exists because they somehow started working on it before realizing SwiftUI was the way forward. I've yet to see a Catalyst app that does not feel like a quickly hacked beta.

A Catalyst app can be implemented with SwiftUI though, I don't see your point

Re: Osborning the Mac, or not

#69

Post by dijit »

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #42
asveikau wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In 2011 Nokia had several OSs. Symbian was the cash cow, successful in a number of markets. But not up to par with where Android and iOS were leading the industry. The prevailing wisdom seemed to be it needed some modernization or replacement. Maemo/Meego was their previous replacement candidate, based on Linux and Qt. Personally I liked this one. They never really allowed it to be on a path to cannibalize Symbian. I…

> Maemo/Meego was their previous replacement candidate, based on Linux and Qt. Personally I liked this one. Meego—and the Nokia N9 it ran on—was so damn good . I can still remember the feeling of using it; it felt so good! I am still pissed off that they killed it. For Windows Phone, of all things!

Sweetheart deals with ex-Microsoft Executives leading the company. In my opinion: This is a cautionary tale of career executives.

There was, however, an anecdote banded about the Helsinki R&D Nokia offices: "We have, easily, the most expensive clock application ever made, it's been rewritten so many times". So maybe the inefficiency was always going to kill it.

That said, Nokia was betting on Meego replacing Symbian, symbian was so crazy optimised for low end hardware though.

Re: Osborning the Mac, or not

#70

Post by Applejinx »

bitwize wrote: post #8
nicoburns wrote: post #2

There shouldn't be too much of an Osbourne effect with ARM macs. If anything, the sensible approach is the opposite: get in there quickly and get yourself an x86 mac while you still can. ARM macs make sense long-term, but the experience is likely to pretty rough at first while software support catches up.

We're talking about Apple here, the company that pulled off two seamless architecture transitions for its desktop platform -- something I believe no other desktop vendor even attempted. ARM Macs will do just fine. Backwards compatibility will be close to 100%. x86-64 apps may run a bit slow, but native software will benefit from running on the most powerful laptop money can buy, period.

They'll probably run the entire gamut of mobile apps, with desktop apps more of the afterthought. I have a feeling this is more about… 'Mac Pro-ing the iPhone'?

Seems like it's about encouraging the development of way more ambitious ARM-based stuff that will tend to eclipse the x86 and 'desktop' things, on the basis that Apple is far bigger in the mobile space than they are in desktops. Maybe there's the prospect of super-powerful computers in a sort of cluster form… a dense block of iPhones, rather than a massively multi-core PC? That's sheerly hypothetical, but given the characteristics of ARM stuff it seems reasonable.

Post reply on HN