Live data from Hacker News

Apple announces it will switch to its own processors for future Macs

theverge.com

641–650 of 1001 posts

Re: Apple announces it will switch to its own processors for future Macs

#641
post #578

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They already have a mobile chip that is as fast as an active-thermally cooled notebook chip.

"As fast" on specific curated use cases. Show me an Apple chip that beats any laptop on 7zip.

How about JavaScript execution? https://twitter.com/dhh/status/1043277162676072449

Re: Apple announces it will switch to its own processors for future Macs

#642

Commenters here seem dubious. I’ll take the contra-position. This feels to me like it’s going to be great; a big win for consumers and developers. Current A12z chips are highly performant; Apple is roughly one chip cycle ahead on perfomance/watt from any other manufacturer. I presume their consumer hardware will launch with an A13Z, or maybe an A14 type chip. Apple has consistently shipped new chip designs on time; I…

> So, I’m predicting an MBP 13 - 16 range with an extra three hours of battery life+, and 20-30% faster. I'm predicting the opposite: you won't actually see any difference. Once you look closely at power profiles on modern machines you'll see that most energy is going into display and GPU. CPUs mostly run idle. Even if you had a theoretical CPU using zero energy, most people are not going to get 30% battery life gain…

I fully expect any reduction in costs for Apple will get sent to their shareholders, not the consumers.

Re: Apple announces it will switch to its own processors for future Macs

#643
post #537

Commenters here seem dubious. I’ll take the contra-position. This feels to me like it’s going to be great; a big win for consumers and developers. Current A12z chips are highly performant; Apple is roughly one chip cycle ahead on perfomance/watt from any other manufacturer. I presume their consumer hardware will launch with an A13Z, or maybe an A14 type chip. Apple has consistently shipped new chip designs on time; I…

Here's an analogy to help explain the skepticism: ants have amazing efficiency - they can lift multiples of their own body weight. So why can't an ant lift my car? Well, because it's too small. So let's just take the same ant design and scale it up? Unfortunately, it doesn't work like that. A creature capable of lifting my car wouldn't be much like an ant. There is no guarantee that a phone-scale CPU can just become…

Intel can't shrink the die size to what TSMC/Global Foundries/Samsung can and they will never let them manufacture due to IP/national security/etc reasons.

Re: Apple announces it will switch to its own processors for future Macs

#645
post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was pretty much the same with PowerPC to Intel... Steve Jobs demoed OSX first. Then surprised everybody by saying, OSX had lived a double life in a secret building for many years (with photo), and that he had been running on an Intel Pentium 4 during the demo all morning. Nothing about performance. There was also a developer system back then; an Intel Pentium 4 in a PowerMac case. In a lot of ways, this is far mor…

It wasn't a surprise to anyone paying attention; NeXTSTEP had run on 68K/x86/Sparc/PA-RISC. Removing architecture support would have been remarkable. What's important, for those paying attention, is that Apple promoted PowerPC emulation with the first x86 Macs in OS X 10.4 and then removed it after 10.6. If you think Apple won't screw you again, well, go ahead, it's your money. [Dis]claimer: I have no long or short i…

> [Dis]claimer: I have no long or short in AAPL. Anyone posting or voting in this thread should similarly disclose.

It’s extremely weird to me to assume that an opinion someone posts in an online message board will be heavily influenced by their stock portfolio.

Re: Apple announces it will switch to its own processors for future Macs

#646

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> there were no actual products announced. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think they also didn't announce any actual hardware when they introduced Intel Macs. Interestingly, for the PowerPC->Intel transition, they also had an Developer Transition Kit: https://www.macstories.net/stories/this-is-not-a-product-the...

To be honest, this entire plan looks like copy-Paste, kinda like how Star Wars Episode 7 is kinda a remake of A New hope? Rosetta 2, Universal 2, The DTK Program demo on ARM,, it's the same plan.

This is business, not some entertainment-value focused venture.

Apple did great last go-around, and they are leagues ahead of Microsoft or any other tech company in such a massive/successful platform shift.

This is their 3rd architecture shift btw - 680x0 -> Power -> Intel -> ARM. They practically wrote the book on how to do it right.

Re: Apple announces it will switch to its own processors for future Macs

#647
post #439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Logic Pro Logic isn't worth much without plugins, and I expect many smaller developers not to port to ARM, and there's nobody to fill the gap in the first years. If that is indeed the case, Apple will begin losing market share where it currently reigns. When there's no pro software, the mac will be just an iPad with a keyboard. It's quite a gamble. But I've been too pessimistic before.

> Logic isn't worth much without plugins… Rosetta 2 cross-compiles Intel binaries to ARM. Why would VST/AU plug-in binaries be an exception?

(Audio/DSP) plugins are a tricky thing, it is not uncommon for some of them to have assembly or processor specific instructions to squeeze out as much performance as possible. Your 'budget' in this domain is limited to only a few milliseconds ...

Re: Apple announces it will switch to its own processors for future Macs

#648

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So, I’m predicting an MBP 13 - 16 range with an extra three hours of battery life+, and 20-30% faster. I'm predicting the opposite: you won't actually see any difference. Once you look closely at power profiles on modern machines you'll see that most energy is going into display and GPU. CPUs mostly run idle. Even if you had a theoretical CPU using zero energy, most people are not going to get 30% battery life gain…

I'm also predicting there will be no difference in battery life. If you check technical specifications on past MBP battery specification and battery life you can notice one thing: Watt/hour battery is always decreasing and battery life is always remaining constant (e.g., 10 hours of web scrolling). Gain in power consumption allows to reduce component space which allows further slimmer designs.

> "Watt/hour battery is always decreasing"

This isn't always true. The 16" MacBook Pro, for example, has a 100 Wh battery, which is the largest that Apple has ever shipped in a laptop. This is the largest battery size permitted in cabin baggage on flights.

Re: Apple announces it will switch to its own processors for future Macs

#650

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So, I’m predicting an MBP 13 - 16 range with an extra three hours of battery life+, and 20-30% faster. I'm predicting the opposite: you won't actually see any difference. Once you look closely at power profiles on modern machines you'll see that most energy is going into display and GPU. CPUs mostly run idle. Even if you had a theoretical CPU using zero energy, most people are not going to get 30% battery life gain…

I fully expect any reduction in costs for Apple will get sent to their shareholders, not the consumers.

Bingo. Estimates vary wildly, but I've seen figures saying that Axx CPUs cost Apple about $50 each. Even if it's more like $100, that's still an insane amount of additional profit per unit to be extracted. They don't need to deal with single-supplier hassles and they get much more control over what cores go into their SoC.

This is sort-of-OK for consumers but amazing for Apple and its shareholers.

Post reply on HN