![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
As 'useful' as this option is, it doesn't make Apple money on any useful scale. They'd rather be selling through their app store.
They're likely to go AMD for CPUs in 'traditional' systems, but ARM for now is most likely going to be used to provide a passable desktop experience at a lower cost for iMacs, and at lower cost and longer battery life for Macbooks.
...you mean a GUI?
They already did this with Rosetta in 2006 when migrating from PPC64 to x86.
That isn't what any of these articles are stating, though, and if Apple were going to do that, it would have happened 3-5 years ago.
For the end-users and customers, I agree.
We'll see.
Tell me of one company that isn't. By definition and tax law if you're not a "non-profit" organization, you're "for profit". You're arriving at very common knowledge for any fortune 500 company.Apple isn't in the market for us, it is in the market for the almighty profit.
I agree, and while I do think the performance will be there, outside of their mobile offerings' performance, we don't have any true and concrete numbers at this time.
It's ironic you say that, since I thought this would have happened nearly a decade ago with mobile and desktop environments alike, much in the vein of VDI.
Hey now, the dark cyberpunk future is upon us, and it might be a wise decision to pick the megacorporation you want to side with, before they decide to pick you...
It's absolutely possible for ARM or other ISA to replace x86 for "desktop" computing. The performance needs are simply not there for higher-power devices for most users.
The biggest issue is the software, after the internet. The software has to be designed around this 'interface here, workload there' paradigm, and that's simply extremely difficult to do well. It's far easier to just give users more performance, since that's also available.
So, you mean a desktop GUI, then.
Why would it emulate itself...?
I said that because MacOS and iOS are effectively the same OS, so if Apple were going to add in an ARM co-processor for such functions, they would have already done it.
If Apple had wanted to move to ARM-based desktops and laptops back in 2015, they certainly could have, but the performance would not have been there yet, and their Metal API (proprietary) wasn't enforced across the board as the new standard, so it would have been a much higher uphill battle for them to get this done.
What does this have to do with anything we are talking about?
I said it wouldn't happen overnight, and may take over a decade to get ARM to replace x86-64, assuming that happens at all.
I do. It's one of the reasons I'm not on Windows. And why people are on Macs in the first place. Being the dominant platform doesn't mean you don't want software from other platforms. That's ridiculous. That's like saying you don't want Nintendo or Xbox exclusives because Playstation is the dominant platform.
Not sure for whom. I think there are probably about zero Windows PC users that would ever switch to macOS or a Mac just because it's capable of emulating Windows while not being Windows.
The bottom line is if you "need" to run Windows applications you're running Windows on a PC. Your whole arguments contradicts itself. Why are you on a Mac if Windows is the dominant system? Why are you on a Mac if all you want to do is run Windows software? It's a fallacy.
And then what is your reasoning again for thinking people wouldn't want the reverse of that? Something something dominant platform?
So never. And you're more or less proving my point. You are on the platform that does what you want to do. You're not on a platform that doesn't do what you want to do. Regardless of reason. Regardless of what is necessary. You're on the platform that does what you want. I don't see why you're having a hard time figuring out that it's the same for Mac users. We're on that platform because it does what we need it to do. Not because it is capable of emulating other platforms.
I don't disagree that people buy and use the application. But I also think they use it far less than you think they do. People also buy full blown Microsoft Office all the time but don't necessary use Excel or Access all the time either. Or get the entire Adobe Suite but never run Adobe Illustrator or InDesign.
One of Apple's great criticisms (which I disagree with, but none the less) is that they sell overcosted hardware. It makes zero sense to pay more to get less and then also not natively run the software that you need to to get actual work done.
You're describing again why you're not on a Mac (because you need to run Windows software and play Windows games). You've already stated you're not on one now as the proposition doesn't make sense for you (hardware configurations not to your liking). So I'm on a Mac and telling you that it's not all it's cracked up to be. And you're not on a Mac telling me it's the best thing since sliced bread.
Apparently Apple finds little to no value in this, since they are going to be migrating away from x86-64, so don't blame UnknownSouljer for pointing out the obvious, blame Apple for making an efficient business change.
The thing is, and I had this argument also in another similar ARM coming to Mac thread, is that there isn't even a gurantee that you'll lose virtualization support anyway. Granted the software would have to be more complex to emulate x86-64 on ARM, but it's not as if it couldn't be done (this is a particular strong suit of VMware). Bootcamp functionality would be lost however unless Windows has an ARM version, but then that would also have to be worth running, which it isn't.
They are more similar, and go hand-in-hand, much more than you are eluding to.
Yep, which is basically what I have been saying in every single Apple ARM thread on here.
So, why would Apple not make a public statement of it yet, especially if they aren't 100% ready to go with their new platforms and replacement strategy?
Do you?
Yes, but said 'rumor' is given by an insider that has a long track record of being right. For what it's worth, I think it's wise to take all rumors with a grain of salt and take a long view with a wait and see approach (to put all the colloquialisms in one sentence).
I'm not really aware of any 'physical limits'; as they exist, they apply to all architectures.
The internet infrastructure can be there tomorrow, if there's a business case for it. In general consumers simply don't have the required workloads and that level of internet connectivity isn't even a significant business need for most traditional small and medium businesses. Even remote desktop functionality / VDI isn't that taxing in terms of typical desktop work, and that's usually done for security reasons more than compute reasons (though there are certainly traditional compute reasons as well).
You just keep crushing my hopes and dreams.
I'm sure SoftBank would never do that with the ARM ISA, and AMD never sold a $1600 dual-core CPU back in 2006 and is a saint of a corporation.
If you mean WWDC 2021, then I agree. If you mean this year, then no. They would never announce a product a year in advance. Generally they announce a product and have it released within a month. For the latest on that, you can look into the recent iPad Pro 4 launch. The track record on this behavior is long.
True, but neither would the average PC user. Most computer users in general aren't particularly knowledeable. If I asked someone on the street the difference between RISC and CISC, they'd have no idea. Or an i5 or i7. Or AMD and Intel. If I even asked a general question like: what is the fastest graphics card? I'd expect that they'd not be able to answer in any meaningful way (as in a failure so bad that they could probably not even name "a" graphics card, let alone the fastest one).
If they are a general browser/office user that occasionally uses Facebook and spends an inordinate amount of time on Youtube? No. In fact, I would bet there are people that bought them and then got upset after the fact when they couldn't do certain things they could before. Then likely had to be educated, and some percentage of those people didn't understand the education. I guarantee it. I also gurantee that there was a large subset that didn't use any applications that required backwards compatibility. Especially if they are a general office/social media user as described above.
That's only necessary if the move to ARM requires any extra work from developers.