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

Apple Said to Work on Mac Chip That Would Lessen Intel Role

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 263 posts

Re: Apple Said to Work on Mac Chip That Would Lessen Intel Role

#231

Post by eru »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #108

It has been interesting to watch the ARM ecosystem unfold. Sort of like seeing a levy breach where just a trickle of water starts flowing over it and then more and more and more. Apple has the resources and the motivation to build a "desktop" 64 bit ARM processor. The history here is also interesting. After debuting the Macintosh in 1984, and getting into fights with Motorola over what should be in the next generatio…

> It gives Apple some unique advantages that neither Microsoft nor Google can match.

Isn't Google working on some in-house chip for training neural networks? (That's only server-side as far as I know, but still.)

Re: Apple Said to Work on Mac Chip That Would Lessen Intel Role

#232

Post by scarface74 »

gcp wrote: post #223
scarface74 wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple wouldn't need an ARM chip to allow iOS apps to run on Macs. I would think that all iOS apps are already compatible with x86. When a developer writes apps today using Xcode and runs the app in the simulator, they are running an x86 compiled version of their app linked against an x86 version of the iOS framework. It wouldn't be that much of a technical hurdle to polish the experience and officially support fat bi…

Only in theory. In practice the existing base of software in the App Store would cause compatibility issues. Intel based Android devices have an ARM emulator on board (libhoudini) and claim to be ARM when querying the store, in order to not have a software offering disadvantage.

I'm not saying it's a good idea, but we are talking about Apple allowing IOS apps run natively on Macs. iOS apps are already running natively on macOS - but only if you have Xcode. Apple could really just include the x86 based iOS framework that it already has in the next version of macOS and tell developers if you want to run on Macs, just modify your UI to support a third target - you are already probably targeting iPhone and iPad - let Xcode bundle the x86 build its already doing while you're testing.

As far as Intel based phones, that's even easier, tell developers they are realeasing an x86 based phone in the next year, either you bundle an x86 version - again you're already testing an x86 build every time you run the emulator - or you'll lose compatibility. Apple has never been afraid to abandon apps when it transistioned processors.

The Android situation is different, if people have a choice between buying an Android device that is 70 percent compatible and one that is 100% compatible. The one that is 70 percent compatible is at a disadvantage. But if people want an iOS device and Apple switches to Intel and they lose some apps what choice do they have?

Re: Apple Said to Work on Mac Chip That Would Lessen Intel Role

#233

Post by mattkevan »

mmastrac wrote: post #9

I think that in the long run you'll see a hybrid ARM/x64 Mac sharing the same case in the same way we have hybrid graphics. If you look at most of the processes running on a Mac, how many of those need to be running on the power-hungrier Intel chip? You could easily offload much of the kernel, Dock, compositor, Twitter desktop, etc to a lower-power ARM. In the case where you aren't running any x64 apps, you could the…

I see this being the first step as a multi-year transition away from Intel, rather than some sort of merger of iOS and macOS or a sudden architecture switch like PowerPC to Intel.

For now, the ARM will be a low-power co-processor handling a few tasks via specially compiled extensions. However, as Apple continues to iterate on the AX processors, and they, along with developers, figure out how to move more stuff onto ARM, the role of the Intel chips will decrease until they are the low-power co-processor running only legacy stuff which can't be easily ported or emulated. Until one day they just go away.

It makes sense that they'd want to own their core processor tech – they've got the talent and in a few years time will have the technology. It seems that each architecture change they've made has been driven by a supplier not being able to deliver, from Motorola with 68k to Motorola (again) and IBM with PowerPC and now Intel.

Re: Apple Said to Work on Mac Chip That Would Lessen Intel Role

#234

Post by [deleted] »

eru wrote: post #231
ChuckMcM wrote: post #108

It has been interesting to watch the ARM ecosystem unfold. Sort of like seeing a levy breach where just a trickle of water starts flowing over it and then more and more and more. Apple has the resources and the motivation to build a "desktop" 64 bit ARM processor. The history here is also interesting. After debuting the Macintosh in 1984, and getting into fights with Motorola over what should be in the next generatio…

> It gives Apple some unique advantages that neither Microsoft nor Google can match. Isn't Google working on some in-house chip for training neural networks? (That's only server-side as far as I know, but still.)

[deleted]

Re: Apple Said to Work on Mac Chip That Would Lessen Intel Role

#235

Post by caleblloyd »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #108

It has been interesting to watch the ARM ecosystem unfold. Sort of like seeing a levy breach where just a trickle of water starts flowing over it and then more and more and more. Apple has the resources and the motivation to build a "desktop" 64 bit ARM processor. The history here is also interesting. After debuting the Macintosh in 1984, and getting into fights with Motorola over what should be in the next generatio…

Windows RT and ChromeOS have both supported ARM for a while. In the case of Windows, adoption is low because not all applications work on ARM. Apple would hit the same problem initially and would have to wait for application developers to distribute ARM versions.

Re: Apple Said to Work on Mac Chip That Would Lessen Intel Role

#236

Post by fnord123 »

duskwuff wrote: post #38
alrs wrote: post #13

There's always a hedge afoot. Apple had OS 7 running on Intel as early as 1992. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_project

I would be shocked if Apple didn't have macOS running on some ARM development systems internally. It's not even that much of a stretch -- both systems use nearly the same kernel, and the iOS userspace runs on x86 as part of the iOS Simulator.

afaik there is no ACPI with ARM so it's non trivial to setup an ARM system that has modular hardware as we take for granted in the Intel world. Maybe they went through the trouble and are keeping it under wraps. Or maybe not.

Re: Apple Said to Work on Mac Chip That Would Lessen Intel Role

#237

Post by fnord123 »

bluedino wrote: post #150
Analemma_ wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's time to start fresh with a new architecture if they want to maintain their reputation of having the most powerful technology. They tried that, though. It was called Itanium and it went nowhere. Now, Itanium had all kinds of other problems and I wouldn't call its failure incontrovertible evidence against "Intel should make a new architecture", but I can understand why the company isn't eager to try that again.…

Was the Itanium fiasco more HP or Intel's fault? Either way, it's been 20+ years they could try again.

I thought they learned that exposing the complexity was a big problem. So now the chips are internally complex but hide it behind the instruction set interface while the chip does its own stuff in the microcode.

Re: Apple Said to Work on Mac Chip That Would Lessen Intel Role

#238

Post by scholia »

Tanegashima wrote: post #200
scholia wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was pent-up demand from people who had been holding off buying the old model....

Because you can't buy something else from the PC industry? If there is pent up demand, it's because Apple has been treating their costumeira much better than every other OEM.

> Because you can't buy something else from the PC industry?

You can, but it doesn't run MacOS or Final Cut Pro.

> If there is pent up demand, it's because Apple has been treating their costumeira much better than every other OEM

Or rather, it was by treating their customers worse than other OEMs by not updating their machines.

I didn't notice any other PC manufacturers where the buyer's guide said "Do not buy" for all but one machine (and the exception was the slowest MacBook).

Re: Apple Said to Work on Mac Chip That Would Lessen Intel Role

#239

Post by scholia »

ScottBurson wrote: post #205
scholia wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Well, one reason is that touch screens for desktop OSes suck They work perfectly well on desktops like the Surface Studio, where you can bring the screen down to a drawing board angle. They also work well with a "desktop OS" on convertible laptops and 2-in-1s with multiple use modes including "tent" and "tablet". They're actually not too bad on real desktops with vertical screens, especially if you're standing up.…

Except that a touch screen can't (reasonably) be optically coated to reduce reflected glare, because skin oils from fingerprints disable the effect, showing up as bright spots. Those of us who are still bummed that we can't get a matte screen on a Mac laptop anymore will be triply upset if we can't even have an optical coating. For the use cases of tablets/convertibles, it presumably doesn't matter so much, but for t…

How many have you bought? The last time I bought a non-touch laptop -- last year -- I quickly realised my mistake, took it back and paid more for one with a touch-screen.

Anything without a touch-screen just feels horribly broken and out of date now.

Otherwise I'm not sure what your complaint is. I see lots of people happily using touch screens for all sorts of purposes. That includes smartphones, tablets, convertibles, laptops and desktops.

I don't really see why something that works on screen sizes from 4-inches to 28 inches (Surface Studio) across multiple form factors should somehow not work on some particular device.

> the more intensive creative work that laptops are better for, it does.

Not sure what you mean, here. Laptops are less powerful than desktops and ergonomically inferior. They are not better for anything except moving around.

Re: Apple Said to Work on Mac Chip That Would Lessen Intel Role

#240

Post by zimpenfish »

caleblloyd wrote: post #235
ChuckMcM wrote: post #108

It has been interesting to watch the ARM ecosystem unfold. Sort of like seeing a levy breach where just a trickle of water starts flowing over it and then more and more and more. Apple has the resources and the motivation to build a "desktop" 64 bit ARM processor. The history here is also interesting. After debuting the Macintosh in 1984, and getting into fights with Motorola over what should be in the next generatio…

Windows RT and ChromeOS have both supported ARM for a while. In the case of Windows, adoption is low because not all applications work on ARM. Apple would hit the same problem initially and would have to wait for application developers to distribute ARM versions.

> would have to wait for application developers to distribute ARM versions.

Or they can switch to their bitcode bundles for Mac apps like the iOS apps and transcode for Intel / ARM on delivery. Plus they have previous form in this area with the "run PPC apps on Intel" via Rhapsody (IIRC.) It'll be a stumbling block, nothing more.

Post reply on HN