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

71–80 of 263 posts

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

#71

Post by roryisok »

wmf wrote: post #58
r00fus wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why so? A Mac is a very high ASP item - why not, for example allow iOS apps to run in macOS (using the ARM processor). Ultimately, the 2016 MBPs are a great example of why Apple needs to divest from Intel. The poor timing for Kaby Lake mobile processors and lack of low-power RAM were both Apple's reasons stated when the topic of "the MBP isn't keeping up with the competition" arises. And who's to say that macOS.next…

why not, for example allow iOS apps to run in macOS That's not what the article is talking about and it's a bad idea for UX reasons (no touchscreen). And who's to say that macOS.next will be anything similar to the current macOS? Don't even go there; a vocal minority of Mac users including me do not want anything like that. And getting back to the article, if the OS is radically different then presumably it doesn't n…

No reason they couldn't put a touch screen on a MacBook or imac, though I guess they can't guarantee one on a mac pro

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

#72

Post by abalone »

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…

They'll probably follow what they just did with the A10, at least in the near term. It has a low power mode and a high power mode, but doesn't run them simultaneously. Too complicated. It actually has 4 cores (2 low, 2 high) but can only run one pair at a time.[1]

So while that is similar on its face to hybrid graphics, I'm not sure it would be feasible to offload background tasks to the low power mode as it would be constantly switching modes every few milliseconds. More likely this architecture is better suited to Power Nap where the whole device enters a low-power state with restricted functions. That also sidesteps the issue of having to compile every third party app for two architectures. They can just implement the Power Nap stuff for ARM.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_A10

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

#73

Post by Analemma_ »

lend000 wrote: post #66

It's finally happening! The increase in competition in both the foundry and architectural spaces is exactly what we need to push us past this stagnation of Moore's Law. Intel needs to sacrifice Microsoft and make x86 a legacy architecture. There are huge parts of their processor designs that no one at the company modifies (or even understands) from one generation to the next, but which they cannot remove for backward…

> 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.

Backwards compatibility exerts an powerful gravitational pull that is extremely difficult to break away from if you're not started a new platform ex nihilo (which Apple did for the iPhone).

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

#74

Post by plussed_reader »

MR4D wrote: post #70

This has been rumored for some time. I believe it's true, but then again, Apple kills off most projects before they see the light of day. Whether this ever makes it to consumers is the important question. That being said, I've seen a number of comments about running iOS apps on Macs, or "convertible" Macs/iPads, and so on. I think those are off base given the supposed purity that Apple always talks about. However, th…

I feel like they've been doing this to osX, starting with 10.9 it seems like a lot of the visual flair of iOS has filtered into the macOS environment.

I fear that this will dumb it down too much for the power users, and conversely over-complicate it for the average iOS user. I'd love to be wrong...

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

#77

Post by 5ilv3r »

sorenjan wrote: post #53
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…

Why doesn't Intel include an Atom core on their CPUs as a next level speed step, like ARMs big.little? It has to be much easier to keep both the high and low power parts the same architecture.

That would probably be less power efficient than just running a single core alone at reduced clock.

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

#78

Post by bitmapbrother »

acdha wrote: post #49
msbarnett wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IIRC AMD's cross-licensing deals with Intel over certain key patents are null and void if AMD is bought, which puts a real damper on the main reason anyone would consider purchasing the company.

I believe this is the agreement you're referring to and it looks like it applies even to a change in ownership of 50% of the company: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/2488/000119312509236...

Does Apple even need to own a majority ownership to control the company? Couldn't they just purchase 49.9% of the company and set up the board of directors in their favor? With that much stake getting the company to do what you want it to do wouldn't be that difficult it seems.

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

#79

Post by throwaway91111 »

mortenjorck wrote: post #43
throwaway91111 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is apple divesting its mac offering? Sounds like FUD.

Divestment is an oversimplification of the direction Apple seems to be taking the Mac. Consolidation would be a better term: trying to prune the product line into a lineup of hits and nothing else, often to the exclusion of non-mainstream (professional) users. So the test to apply is: will this enable a headline feature? In this case, if it lets Apple put a significantly bigger battery life number on the product page…

I mean, I'm not a fan of the new MBP myself, but I don't think they're ignoring professional users. Didn't their MBP sales go UP?

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

#80

Post by MR4D »

plussed_reader wrote: post #74
MR4D wrote: post #70

This has been rumored for some time. I believe it's true, but then again, Apple kills off most projects before they see the light of day. Whether this ever makes it to consumers is the important question. That being said, I've seen a number of comments about running iOS apps on Macs, or "convertible" Macs/iPads, and so on. I think those are off base given the supposed purity that Apple always talks about. However, th…

I feel like they've been doing this to osX, starting with 10.9 it seems like a lot of the visual flair of iOS has filtered into the macOS environment. I fear that this will dumb it down too much for the power users, and conversely over-complicate it for the average iOS user. I'd love to be wrong...

Yes, but this is not specifically what I'm talking about.

Think of something like MS Outlook - it's a big, complex app with lots of features. Now imagine that you only write the app once, but design two interfaces for it - one set for the Mac, and the other for the iPad. You compile through XCode, and upload to the App store. Apple notes that their are interfaces for both iPad and Mac, and posts it in both app stores.

Obviously the mechanics would not be exactly like this (I presume a manifest of some kind), but it should be pretty close.

For Apple, this would bring more developers onto their tooling (yes, even many of those that complain about XCode), and allow more developers to target multiple platforms with little extra effort.

In fact, one of the more interesting things is that Apple could even create new platforms that just require some interface additions and an updated manifest.

Have a bug in your code? One fix. One upload. One code review.

Post reply on HN