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

91–100 of 253 posts

Re: Osborning the Mac, or not

#91

Post by scarface74 »

lanna wrote: post #26
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…

> When they did the hardware transitions, they had a compatibility layer (Rosetta) that was supported for 5 years after the transition. But with the 32 bit change, the announced that it would no longer be supported in 2017, and dropped support in 2019, just 2 years later. You are comparing the time a technology was supported with the time it was announced a technology would no longer be supported. 32-bit apps were su…

32 bit Carbon was deprecated in 2012. Did it really take a rocket scientist to know that you shouldn’t be writing 32 bit software in 2017? 10 years after the last 32 bit Mac shipped?

Re: Osborning the Mac, or not

#92

Post by scarface74 »

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,…

Apple sold both 68K and PPC Macs in parallel for years giving time for companies to port their apps.

There is no reason that they can’t do a dual processor strategy. Heck they shipped Apple // computers and Macs simultaneously for eight years.

Re: Osborning the Mac, or not

#93

Post by perardi »

bluedino wrote: post #84

What are the possible reasons why they haven't done it already? 1. The power savings just isn't there. I find this hard to believe. 2. The performance of the chips just isn't there. This is very possible. 3. Not enough software is compatible yet. What are the crucial pieces? 4. Xcode isn't up to snuff running on ARM yet.

5. Development cycles are long, they were operating under the assumption Intel would deliver efficient 10nm parts in volume, and instead Intel is still on 14nm++++++++++++.

Re: Osborning the Mac, or not

#94

Post by scarface74 »

TMWNN wrote: post #66
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 perf…

I’m glad you did the edit. I was about to tell you a story about comparing my Mac LCII with an upgraded 68030-40 and my PPC 6100/60 running emulated software.

Re: Osborning the Mac, or not

#95

Post by zeveb »

renaudg wrote: post #46
jedberg wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

25 billion is still only 10% of their revenue. And they won't lose it all by making it a shitty transition. Heck, they won't lose most of it. But if they lose 20% of their revenue because of a bad transition, that's still only 2% of the total company revenue. Why would the spend money on protecting that 2%?

Because the Mac and iDevices revenue streams are not as independent as you imply. Driving the Mac off a cliff would alienate developers and have serious repercussions on the iOS ecosystem as well. Why do you think Apple still builds Pro apps like Logic and FCP ? They are almost certainly losing money given their ridiculously low price point, but they help with brand image and keeping the Mac the go-to platform for cr…

> Driving the Mac off a cliff would alienate developer

How many, though, and would they really switch to Windows or Linux, or retire from the industry?

Apple has always — or at least since 1984 — had an incredibly loyal fanbase. I think that the sort of slights which would make me leave a platform just roll of their collective back.

Re: Osborning the Mac, or not

#96

Post by AshamedCaptain »

bluedino wrote: post #84

What are the possible reasons why they haven't done it already? 1. The power savings just isn't there. I find this hard to believe. 2. The performance of the chips just isn't there. This is very possible. 3. Not enough software is compatible yet. What are the crucial pieces? 4. Xcode isn't up to snuff running on ARM yet.

1 and 2 are just a tradeoff. I.e. the performance may be there, but at a power level that isn't really much lower than Intel. Or viceversa.

Re: Osborning the Mac, or not

#97

Post by kstenerud »

It's actually a brilliant move by Apple.

After the new machines are released, all Mac app store apps will just magically work because they were recompiled behind the scenes by Apple to run on ARM. Only independent releases (stuff not in the app store) will have to deal with the shit show, which will also push more developers to the Apple tax.

For regular Mac users (who are already using the app store for everything), there will be no difference, and nobody will care what's actually under the hood. All of their software will work just fine whether it's x64 or ARM. There's nothing to wait for because these ARM machines aren't going to be so much better that people delay their purchase. It would be like holding off on the 2.2L engine variant of a car because the new model with the 2.4L engine with 5% better acceleration is around the corner.

Of course the reality will be that some apps will break, but the majority will just work, and Apple will be working behind the scenes with the biggest fish to make sure their stuff transitions smoothly.

Re: Osborning the Mac, or not

#98

Post by Mindwipe »

kstenerud wrote: post #97

It's actually a brilliant move by Apple. After the new machines are released, all Mac app store apps will just magically work because they were recompiled behind the scenes by Apple to run on ARM. Only independent releases (stuff not in the app store) will have to deal with the shit show, which will also push more developers to the Apple tax. For regular Mac users (who are already using the app store for everything),…

> For regular Mac users (who are already using the app store for everything)

Lol.

Definitely not.

Re: Osborning the Mac, or not

#99

Post by slantyyz »

scarface74 wrote: post #88
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…

Also, if the transition from 32 to 64 bit is any indication, they don't care nearly as much about backwards compatibility as they used to. When they did the hardware transitions, they had a compatibility layer (Rosetta) that was supported for 5 years after the transition. But with the 32 bit change, the announced that it would no longer be supported in 2017, and dropped support in 2019, just 2 years later Apple hasn’…

>> Were developers really caught off guard that they shouldn’t be writing 32 bit software in 2017?

Probably not, but end users shouldn't have to suffer because they bought software from bad developers. One reason why IE still ships with Windows is because a lot of companies are still using old enterprise software that never got updated for the modern web.

Re: Osborning the Mac, or not

#100

Post by te_chris »

kstenerud wrote: post #97

It's actually a brilliant move by Apple. After the new machines are released, all Mac app store apps will just magically work because they were recompiled behind the scenes by Apple to run on ARM. Only independent releases (stuff not in the app store) will have to deal with the shit show, which will also push more developers to the Apple tax. For regular Mac users (who are already using the app store for everything),…

Given a large proportion of premium mac sales are to people in the creative industries using specialist software distributed outside the app store, I don't think your intuition is correct on this one.
Post reply on HN