Apple ARM Based MacBooks and iMacs to come in 2021

UnknownSouljer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2001
Messages
6,483
Porting always requires developer work. For complex software, testing alone could eat many months.
Both iOS and macOS run the same frameworks.
Apple front loads a lot of the problem solving for devs. In the case of the move from PPC to Intel they created Rosetta. Allowing for all PPC apps to be run on Intel machines with guess what? Zero effort. Or to quote Wikipedia directly:
Wikipedia said:
Rosetta is a discontinued dynamic binary translator for Mac OS X that allowed many PowerPC applications to run on certain Intel-based Macintosh computers without modification.
Obviously eventually Rosetta was depreciated and removed, but the bottom line is, if you think 6 months was enough time to recode software from that architecture shift, it most certainly wasn't. But Apple made it so that it didn't have to be. Much like what the case will be here. In the case of Rosetta people had 4 years and change to get their programs off of it (from Tiger to Snow Leopard) before it was depreciated. I expect an even smoother transition this time around as there won't need to be re-coding necessary. It's all Swift.

That's such a convincing argument. :rolleyes:
It wasn't meant to be. Apparently you don't understand text. It was the following statement to reiterate it since you need things spelled out for you in the plainest way possible:
You aren't going to change your mind. We know that. I know that. You know that. I am not going to change my mind. You know that. I know that. We know that. There isn't really a whole lot of point discussing it further as at this point we're sending 5 word responses rehashing the same garbage.
You're eternally cynical and skeptical of Apple news despite not following it. There isn't any piece of evidence that would change your mind short of a major announcement. You've said the same things over and over already.
 
Last edited:

Snowdog

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
10,658
Both iOS and macOS run the same frameworks.
Apple front loads a lot of the problem solving for devs. In the case of the move from PPC to Intel they created Rosetta. Allowing for all PPC apps to be run on Intel machines with guess what? Zero effort. Or to quote Wikipedia directly:
Emulation doesn't mean they won't give developers a heads up, just like they did before.

You aren't going to change your mind. We know that. I know that. You know that. I am not going to change my mind.
That applies to >90% of internet arguments. But that doesn't mean I can't point out the holes in your argument.

You're eternally cynical and skeptical of Apple news despite not following it. There isn't any piece of evidence that would change your mind short of a major announcement. You've said the same things over and over already.
I am eternally skeptical of ALL rumors. I follow Apple news in detail, and have since the days of the Apple II. My mind is easily changed by actual evidence.
 

UnknownSouljer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2001
Messages
6,483
Emulation doesn't mean they won't give developers a heads up, just like they did before.
This time it won’t require emulation. It will all be native. A point you’re not getting.
And two, in the case of a six month window we’re still talking about WWDC next year.

That applies to >90% of internet arguments. But that doesn't mean I can't point out the holes in your argument.
You haven’t really. You think you have. But whatever you insist on rehashing.

I am eternally skeptical of ALL rumors. I follow Apple news in detail, and have since the days of the Apple II. My mind is easily changed by actual evidence.
If you did you’d know Ming-Chi Kuo’s track record. I defy you to find cases where he was wrong over the past 5+ years. There are overwhelmingly more cases in which he has been correct. Even years in advance. Much like this case.
 
Last edited:

aokman

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 3, 2012
Messages
1,033
I would agree. Macbooks are very different beasts than iPads. Making them more similar doesn't seem like a win.



Unless the damn thing is 64 cores, you're not going to get i9 performance at a 1/4 the wattage. Not happening. Compared to x86, ARM performance is much lower.



VERY big difference there. Intel was commodity. IBM powerpc was not. I can see the argument that ARM is the definition of commodity. However, the performance is much, much, lower.



Forces vendors to re-code VERY popular software that has been x86 for a decade or longer. Developers are lazy.



I completely agree.
ummmm no... the A12Z Bionic is an easy match for the i9900k and that is with just passive cooling.
 

OFaceSIG

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 31, 2009
Messages
2,390
ummmm no... the A12Z Bionic is an easy match for the i9900k and that is with just passive cooling.
You're clearly very excited about this. However I think the rest of the world would like some proof.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Axman
like this

IdiotInCharge

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
14,308
For ARM to be a desktop success for Apple, it doesn't need to be as fast as current x86 CPUs -- those will still be here!

It just needs to be fast enough for your average desktop user. A 2.0GHz dual-core (Skylake or Zen 2) equivalent would have them covered. More important would be storage performance and connectivity to the end-user experience. I still have an old Sandy laptop that does quite fine of the desktop with an SSD and 8GB of RAM...

Most would be happy with such a system if it were cheaper and / or it ran forever unplugged.
 

Red Falcon

[H]F Junkie
Joined
May 7, 2007
Messages
10,530
Emulation doesn't mean they won't give developers a heads up, just like they did before.
You keep talking about emulation - what "emulation" will be needed?
The last time Apple used any emulation was during the move from m68k to PPC in the early to mid 1990s.
 

UnknownSouljer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2001
Messages
6,483
You're clearly very excited about this. However I think the rest of the world would like some proof.
Here is a linked time code to Jonathan Morrison's review of the 2018 iPad Pro specifically the performance section:
Feel free to do your own research. This stuff isn't hidden. It's common knowledge since at least 2018 when the iPad Pro 3 dropped.
The iPad Pro is capable of editing 4k footage and playback with color grading in real time. That crushes most sub $1000 and $1500 laptops. Video editing is one of the most overall demanding things you can have a computer do as it stresses GPU, CPU, memory, and HD speeds.
Here is a video demonstrating the video editing in a real world setting with time constraints requiring an end product be finished.
The GPU isn't a slouch either, beating a lot of APUs and mobile GPU parts.

For ARM to be a desktop success for Apple, it doesn't need to be as fast as current x86 CPUs -- those will still be here!

It just needs to be fast enough for your average desktop user. A 2.0GHz dual-core (Skylake or Zen 2) equivalent would have them covered. More important would be storage performance and connectivity to the end-user experience. I still have an old Sandy laptop that does quite fine of the desktop with an SSD and 8GB of RAM...

Most would be happy with such a system if it were cheaper and / or it ran forever unplugged.
I slightly disagree about what the minimum needs to be (although I do agree with your overall premise of it only needing to be entry level). I think it has to performance at least as well as a Quadcore + hyperthreading with 8GB of RAM and a graphics equivalent of an APU. The thing is though the A12X and A12Z already destroy that level of performance, and we haven't seen what a full fat ARM chip from Apple could look like. We've only seen what low wattage cellphone and tablet processors look like.
This hasn't been stated in a rumor directly, but it is implied that there is a new ARM chip Apple is developing specifically for this purpose. And it seems likely that it will be much faster than what Apple has already done with iPad Pro. I think iPad Pro level of performance is the floor.

You keep talking about emulation - what "emulation" will be needed?
The last time Apple used any emulation was during the move from m68k to PPC in the early to mid 1990s.
We actually just mentioned this in this thread about 10 or so posts back, but Apple did use Rosetta to transition from PPC to Intel from 2006-2011. However the thing that Snowdog keeps rehashing is that that didnt required anything from the developers (they had 4 years to transition, not the time between announcement and launch) and this time there won't need to be a transition as it all will run natively. macOS already runs iOS applications natively because the frameworks and coding lanugagues are the same. Apple just haven't 'flipped the switch' the other way around mostly likely due to the fact that no KB/M on those devices makes most desktop apps unusable.
 
Last edited:

Red Falcon

[H]F Junkie
Joined
May 7, 2007
Messages
10,530
We actually just mentioned this in this thread about 10 or so posts back, but Apple did use Rosetta to transition from PPC to Intel from 2006-2011.
Wasn't Rosetta more of a high-level translator, than a low-level emulator, though?
There were also applications which compiled and ran universal (PPC and x86) binaries as well at that time period.

However the thing that Snowdog keeps rehashing is that that didnt required anything from the developers (they had 4 years to transition, not the time between announcement and launch) and this time there won't need to be a transition as it all will run natively. macOS already runs iOS applications natively because the frameworks and coding lanugagues are the same. Apple just haven't 'flipped the switch' the other way around mostly likely due to the fact that no KB/M on those devices makes most desktop apps unusable.
Agreed, the work has already been done, and has been for the last few years, at least.
 

UnknownSouljer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2001
Messages
6,483
Wasn't Rosetta more of a high-level translator, than a low-level emulator, though?
There were also applications which compiled and ran universal (PPC and x86) binaries as well at that time period.
Yes, but that is still described as emulation as it's not native (from a technicality standpoint). You can read that here, under "Apple Computer" under "Examples" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_translation#Dynamic_binary_translation
It's also described that way further down on the Rosetta wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosetta_(software) Just search for "emulate" on that page.

Agreed, the work has already been done, and has been for the last few years, at least.
It isn't perfect, it still requires some level of optimization when moving from one side to the other, but it doesn't require building apps from the ground up. But the important part is that things like Project Catalyst already exist and have been put in place.
This isn't at all what Microsoft did with ARM. Just dump it on end users and not bother at all with figuring out software and then wonder why people aren't moving to the platform.
 
Last edited:

Red Falcon

[H]F Junkie
Joined
May 7, 2007
Messages
10,530
Yes, but that is still described as emulation as it's not native (from a technicality standpoint). You can read that here, under "Apple Computer" under "Examples" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_translation#Dynamic_binary_translation
It's also described that way further down on the Rosetta wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosetta_(software) Just search for "emulate" on that page.
From the wiki:
Rosetta is a user-level program and can only intercept and emulate user-level code, while the older emulator was integrated with the system at a much lower level.

Alright, I will give it to you, high-level emulation. (y)
 

Lakados

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 3, 2014
Messages
2,297
You keep talking about emulation - what "emulation" will be needed?
The last time Apple used any emulation was during the move from m68k to PPC in the early to mid 1990s.
Microsoft and Apple have both been working with Qualcom on x86 emulation on Arm chips, Microsoft has launched it this year with the Surface Pro X line which from the few reviews I have seen list it as down right usable, though not with the greatest battery life, but 8+ hours isn't too shitty. I expect what ever Apple does with their CPU's to have a sizable performance lead over the Qualcom SQ1, especially in the GPU department.
 
Last edited:

aokman

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 3, 2012
Messages
1,033
You're clearly very excited about this. However I think the rest of the world would like some proof.
Do some research the old A12X from 2 years ago matches or beats the best mobile i7 and that is before we get to the GPU that is built in also that wipes the floor with anything Intel have. The A12Z will be another 40% faster before you factor in the fact you don’t need a seperate GPU also, its win win.

People need to stop thinking ARM is only good for phones, Apple have taken it a lot further than that. Look at what they have done already in an iPad with no real cooling, if they scale that chip up and give it even a modest passive cooler, it will dominate.
 

UnknownSouljer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2001
Messages
6,483
Microsoft and Apple have both been working with Qualcom on x86 emulation on Arm chips, Microsoft has launched it this year with the Surface Pro X line which from the few reviews I have seen list it as down right usable, though not with the greatest battery life, but 8+ hours isn't too shitty. I expect what ever Apple does with their CPU's to have a sizable performance lead over the Qualcom SQ1, especially in the GPU department.
That isn't addressing that macOS and iOS use the same frameworks and coding languages. The point we keep bringing up over and over is that it will be native to native. This transition was thought out a long time ago and Apple have been silently achieving milestones over the past several years.

Both moved to APFS file system.
Both have moved to Metal.
Both use Swift.
macOS is capable of running iOS apps natively.

This is entirely different than the back end that Microsoft is dealing with in Windows. Apple has systematically chosen to depreciate legacy to push forward this level of integration. It would take Microsoft having the same level of vision and follow through that they haven't been either willing or able to do.
 

Snowdog

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
10,658
This is entirely different than the back end that Microsoft is dealing with in Windows. Apple has systematically chosen to depreciate legacy to push forward this level of integration. It would take Microsoft having the same level of vision and follow through that they haven't been either willing or able to do.
It looks like in deprecating legacy, iPads are being pushed as their preferred mobile ARM option and what architecture they run on Macbooks is kind irrelevant as they get cannibalized by iPads.

iPads are better for consumers (more UI options), better for Apple (bigger, thriving ecosystem, healthy App store, more control).
 

UnknownSouljer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2001
Messages
6,483
It looks like in deprecating legacy, iPads are being pushed as their preferred mobile ARM option and what architecture they run on Macbooks is kind irrelevant as they get cannibalized by iPads.

iPads are better for consumers (more UI options), better for Apple (bigger, thriving ecosystem, healthy App store, more control).
Okay. And then how do you explain the rest of the ecosystem? They just released a professional level Mac Pro that is in the same ecosystem. There is also info on a new iMac Pro getting released later this year. The 27" iMac is also the middle level machine that has excellent performance. Also same ecosystem.
In order for your conspiracy theory to work, you'd have to address the Pro Market. Because it's all using the same architecture. All the same frameworks. All the same programing languages.

No one will make the switch to ARM if it doesn't allow people to get the work done they need to get done. And while they might capture the consumer market, they won't capture the pro market in any meaningful way without the performance to back it up.
It's called software integration. It's something that Microsoft wishes it could do. If they could, then their Mobile OS wouldn't have failed. Windows 10 RT wouldn't have failed. And people would use more up to date code bases and they could ditch the legacy support they've been hanging onto for 30 years.
 
Last edited:

Snowdog

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
10,658
Okay. And then how do you explain the rest of the ecosystem? They just released a professional level Mac Pro that is in the same ecosystem. There is also info on a new iMac Pro getting released later this year. The 27" iMac is also the middle level machine that has excellent performance. Also same ecosystem.
In order for your conspiracy theory to work, you'd have to address the Pro Market. Because it's all using the same architecture. All the same frameworks. All the same programing languages.
Did you miss the word mobile?

"iPads are being pushed as their preferred mobile ARM option..."

I am saying it makes more sense that iPads carry the banner on the Mobile side, than it does to reset the ecosystem with ARM Macs.

They already have a thriving ARM Mobile solution: iPads. You just finished making a big deal out of how powerful iPads were, and how they have completely shared frameworks.

So why not just port any Mac applications you need to an iPad for the mobile side?
 

UnknownSouljer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2001
Messages
6,483
Did you miss the word mobile?

"iPads are being pushed as their preferred mobile ARM option..."

I am saying it makes more sense that iPads carry the banner on the Mobile side, than it does to reset the ecosystem with ARM Macs.

They already have a thriving ARM Mobile solution: iPads. You just finished making a big deal out of how powerful iPads were, and how they have completely shared frameworks.

So why not just port any Mac applications you need to an iPad for the mobile side?
The iMac, one of two products that will move to ARM according to Ming-Chi Kuo, isn't mobile (the other being the Macbook Pro). I would guess they'll start with the 21" iMac, but who knows?

Apple generally has a preferred way of doing things. The "right" way. In the case of going the opposite direction (from macOS to iOS) the major issue is that using touch controls on Mac software is what Apple considers to be suboptimal. This is why there has never been a touch screen Macbook Pro.
https://www.cultofmac.com/451511/heres-apple-will-never-give-macbook-touchscreen/
https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/apple-wont-make-macs-with-touchscreen/
https://www.imore.com/where-are-touch-screen-macs

There's just a few links. There are dozens on this topic. Arm based Macbook Pros and iMac's then won't have a touch interface, but will be traditional KB/M. The way Apple likes it.
Jeeze, for a guy that says he keeps up on Apple news it's surprising how much you don't know about what they do. I know all of these articles exist off the top of my head because of reading it all for years.

EDIT: To further expand and address your other points, another reason is product differentiation. iPads are different than Macbooks, and they will continue to have at least some level of difference until either or both are cannibalized into a single product (if that ever occurs, it may not).
The other issue is control and cost. Intel has failed repeatedly to update its processors and also continue to drive power and size as well as cost down. Intel is becoming dead weight. While they could move to AMD, a different supplier, that's far less palatable than them getting to control their own future.
Apple has invested a huge amount into human capital. People that can design microprocessors and not only have they done that, they have excelled in it. The A series of processors are faster than any other competitor by wide margin. And now as has been noted faster than a lot of mobile and desktop processors. So why would they want to continue paying a third party company to build inferior processors? This is the first time in Apple's history in which they can control their own destiny and not be beholden to Motorolla, IBM, or currently Intel for processors.
That comes with its own costs and benefits. They live or die by their own ability to continue producing new products. But they also get a much larger piece of the pie, they can drive prices down (no middle man), and they can have chips designed and integrated in a way that they never could be before. It's not hard really to see why its appealing.
 
Last edited:

Snowdog

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
10,658
Apple generally has a preferred way of doing things. The "right" way. In the case of going the opposite direction (from macOS to iOS) the major issue is that using touch controls on Mac software is what Apple considers to be suboptimal. This is why there has never been a touch screen Macbook Pro.
https://www.cultofmac.com/451511/heres-apple-will-never-give-macbook-touchscreen/
https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/apple-wont-make-macs-with-touchscreen/
https://www.imore.com/where-are-touch-screen-macs

There's just a few links. There are dozens on this topic. Arm based Macbook Pros and iMac's then won't have a touch interface, but will be traditional KB/M. The way Apple likes it.
Jeeze, for a guy that says he keeps up on Apple news it's surprising how much you don't know about what they do. I know all of these articles exist off the top of my head because of reading it all for years.
Nice Strawman.

Who said anything about touch controls on a Macbook?

I said iPads are being setup to cannibalize Macbooks.

iPads already outsell not only Macbooks, but the entire Mac lineup, and they get an ever growing feature set making them, ever more capable as a Macbook replacement. The most recent being full official Mouse/Trackpad support.

Macbooks are legacy, iPads are the future, and you know how Apple treats legacy.

Apples mobile future is here:
 

UnknownSouljer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2001
Messages
6,483
Nice Strawman.

Who said anything about touch controls on a Macbook?

I said iPads are being setup to cannibalize Macbooks.

iPads already outsell not only Macbooks, but the entire Mac lineup, and they get an ever growing feature set making them, ever more capable as a Macbook replacement. The most recent being full official Mouse/Trackpad support.

Macbooks are legacy, iPads are the future, and you know how Apple treats legacy.
Did you read what I wrote? They do no want to have desktop software use touch controls. That isn't a strawman, that is their preferred way of using desktop/laptop UIs and directly refuting your point. The iPad uses touch controls. Ergo they don't want to move Mac software to it. Are you being intentionally obtuse? Adding a KB/M isn't enough. Read those articles I linked you to. The ones you consider to be a Strawman. If they don't want Macbook Pros to have touchscreens in order to do desktop work, why would you think they'd port Apple pro software to iPad putting them directly into that same position? Unless you're suggesting that new iPads will take away touch screen support and just move to KB/M, but then what you're describing is basically the next Macbook Pro. Are you really unable to see the issues in your argument?

The Mac can never be eliminated. Apple has reinvested a lot into the Mac. We're literally in thread talking about the future of the iMac and Macbook Pro and now you're the one going off on fallacies about what it all means.
They can't eliminate the Mac because without the pros working underneath, the top end consumer market doesn't work. That's why they invested so much into a top tier Halo product like the new Mac Pro. Something that as you're noting by sales numbers probably only sells a few 10k a year. But is infinitely important in terms of securing the brand and securing people onto the platform.
The Macbook Pro is the same way. If the Pros can't get their work done on a mobile device then Apple is going to have problems. The iPad by its design and nature can't directly replace the Mac.

Seriously, what is it about this thread that you don't get? It's the reason why Apple is making an Arm Macbook Pro and iMac in the first place.

Macbooks are legacy, iPads are the future, and you know how Apple treats legacy.

Apples mobile future is here:
We're literally in a thread discussing the new Macbook Pro and iMac. Who's making strawman arguments now?
Basically at this point you're just trolling. And I'll give you credit where it's due: it's very subtle. Well played.
 
Last edited:

Snowdog

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
10,658
Did you read what I wrote? They do no want to have desktop software use touch controls. That isn't a strawman, that is their preferred way of using desktop/laptop UIs and directly refuting your point. T
Yes, you were railing against adding Touch to Macs, you posted links against adding touch to Macs. ZERO to do with what I pointed out, iPad Cannibalizing Macbooks. Thus a strawman.

The iPad uses touch controls. Ergo they don't want to move Mac software to it. Are you being intentionally obtuse?
It looks much more like you are being intentionally obtuse.

iPad uses Touch, Stylus, KB and now Mouse/Trackpad.

You mean they won't move Mac Software like Pages, Keynote, Numbers, to iPad? Really?

The Mac can never be eliminated. Apple has revinvested a lot into the Mac. We're literally in thread talking about the future of the iMac and Macbook Pro and now you're the one going off on fallacies about what it all means.
They can't eliminate the Mac because without the pros working underneath the top end consumer market doesn't work. That's why they invested so much into a top tier Halo product like the new Mac Pro. Something that as you're noting by sales numbers probably only sells a few 10k a year. But is infinitely important in terms of securing the brand and securing people onto the platform.
Another strawman, I didn't say anything about eliminating the Mac. I said iPads are being better positioned to cannibalize Macbooks.
 

UnknownSouljer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2001
Messages
6,483
Yes, you were railing against adding Touch to Macs, you posted links against adding touch to Macs. ZERO to do with what I pointed out, iPad Cannibalizing Macbooks. Thus a strawman.
Touch to the Macbook Pro. Specifically the Macbook Pro. Literally one of the article titles is: "where is the touchscreen Macbook Pro". And there are articles on why Apple doesn't make one. And won't make one. To reiterate: interface reasons. Touch to them being inferior input for macOS software.
You're beating around this bush when I'm telling you directly. They do not want desktop/macOS software (and since you're being obtuse the desktop/macOS software is THE SAME SOFTWARE ON THE MACBOOK PRO) to use a touch interface. They will not port any of these macOS softwares to iOS. If you would have read even a single one of those articles then you'd know that they don't want that. So if your argument is contintually that they're going to port desktop/macOS software (or MACBOOK PRO SOFTWARE) to iOS, they won't do it for the same reasons why they don't make a Macbook Pro Touch model. Hopefully the caps will help your reading comprehension. I doubt it though.

It looks much more like you are being intentionally obtuse.

iPad uses Touch, Stylus, KB and now Mouse/Trackpad.

You mean they won't move Mac Software like Pages, Keynote, Numbers, to iPad? Really?
There are already iOS version of those programs. And they aren't the same. As they're designed for touch interfaces.
There is also an iOS version of Garage band and iMovie. Also all of these programs have been available on iOS since 2010. You really don't know these platforms at all. Unsurprising as it's doubtful you're on any of them, nor do you read about any of them.

Another strawman, I didn't say anything about eliminating the Mac. I said iPads are being better positioned to cannibalize Macbooks.
We're in a thread talking about the new Macbook Pro and iMac that will contain ARM chips. Show me even the rumor in which the Macbook is going to get eliminated in favor of moving everything to iOS based devices. I can leave every other argument aside. You're king skeptic. Not believeing a thing until there's an announcement. Show me the announcement. Show me the rumors. Show me the evidence. I'll wait. Because it doesn't matter what position you think what is in. We're only talking about what Apple is actually doing. Everything else is irrelevant.
(Also your reading comprehension is bad. The Macbook Pro is a Mac, a critical one for pros. It's also the Mac that sells the most, more than any other desktop part. So if you're literally just talking about cannibalization and that they're going to continue to make iPads and Macbooks then you have no argument at all. People who want an iPad will continue buying iPads, and people who need macOS apps will continue buying Macbook Pros. On that we can agree I guess in that case, but then you'll have to reassert what it is we're even talking about then).
 
Last edited:

Lakados

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 3, 2014
Messages
2,297
That isn't addressing that macOS and iOS use the same frameworks and coding languages. The point we keep bringing up over and over is that it will be native to native. This transition was thought out a long time ago and Apple have been silently achieving milestones over the past several years.

Both moved to APFS file system.
Both have moved to Metal.
Both use Swift.
macOS is capable of running iOS apps natively.

This is entirely different than the back end that Microsoft is dealing with in Windows. Apple has systematically chosen to depreciate legacy to push forward this level of integration. It would take Microsoft having the same level of vision and follow through that they haven't been either willing or able to do.
My point is that with their existing changes already made such as everything you already listed it will make the transition completely painless for 90%+ of the people that would be in this demographic for this sort of device which is basically anybody who would purchase an iPad Pro or a macbook non pro. Apple has been working on unifying their ipads and macbooks since iOS10 and Apple has been slowly moving their goal posts for developers and their internals for the last 5+ years so that this is pretty seamless and simple.
 

Red Falcon

[H]F Junkie
Joined
May 7, 2007
Messages
10,530
Another strawman, I didn't say anything about eliminating the Mac. I said iPads are being better positioned to cannibalize Macbooks.
Pretty sure that isn't going to happen anytime soon.
There is a market for touch-based applications (iPadOS/iOS) and there is a market for desktop-based applications (MacOS).

Just because have a high probability of being on the same CPU architecture hardly approximates the iPad Pro cannibalizing MacBooks anytime soon.
That would be a poor business decision, and one that Microsoft itself would be more apt to make than Apple.

Adding a keyboard and mouse to an iOS device does not automatically give it, nor its applications, a desktop environment/GUI/feel/etc.
I have seen what modern ARM processors, compared to modern x86-64, are capable of when given a higher TDP, and the results are fairly impressive; going to add that these aren't Apple ARM processors, and the high-TDP performance metrics of those have yet to be seen, but from their low-TDP variants, it is fairly easy to make decent approximations of their performance compared to x86-64.
 

Snowdog

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
10,658
Pretty sure that isn't going to happen anytime soon.
Pretty sure it's already happening already to a small degree, that is only going to grow with the filling out of iPad capabilities.

There is a market for touch-based applications (iPadOS/iOS) and there is a market for desktop-based applications (MacOS).
And iPad can now do both, similar to a laptop, with the recently added Mouse/Trackpad support. Apple is not as zealous about keeping them separate as some fans think.

That was the critical missing UI element that made typical desktop work like editing spreadsheets on an iPad a PITA. Now with Trackpad and Mouse support, it can be comparable effort to doing it on a desktop.

Demo by Craig Federighi of iPad cursor support editing a spreadsheet.


Just because have a high probability of being on the same CPU architecture hardly approximates the iPad Pro cannibalizing MacBooks anytime soon.
That would be a poor business decision, and one that Microsoft itself would be more apt to make than Apple.
Sharing or not sharing an architecture, has nothing to do with iPad cannibalizing Macbooks.

The growing capability of iPads to run all the software most people need in a Laptop, along with the added bonus of touch and stylus support make it inevitable that iPad cannibalization of Macbooks will grow. Apple has NEVER been afraid of cannibalizing it's own products. Fear of doing this is probably a much bigger mistake, it would mean you are purposefully holding back your product, so you aren't making it as good as it could be.

Go forward I see a lot more young people choosing this over Macbooks. Really what can't iPad do these days?
 

UnknownSouljer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2001
Messages
6,483
That was the critical missing UI element that made typical desktop work like editing spreadsheets on an iPad a PITA. Now with Trackpad and Mouse support, it can be comparable effort to doing it on a desktop.
It was easy before. Tap a cell. Type in your information. Move through cells with arrow keys if you prefer, use tapping for your mouse cursor if you need to jump. Everything shown in that video can be done with your finger. Keyboards have been on iPad for a very long time. The trackpad doesn't change much for most people using iOS especially considering that literally only the iPad Pro 4 supports a trackpad.
Go forward I see a lot more young people choosing this over Macbooks. Really what can't iPad do these days?
It's plenty powerful, and it is capable of a lot. But it won't replace dedicated hardware in its current state for music production, video production, or people doing heavy graphics rendering. All of those items are in their infancy on iPad. It also won't replace computers used for coding, especially if it requires any level of emulation. People that want to play games other than whats currently available also won't want to move to iOS. People who do heavy multi tasking won't want to move to iOS. People that need screens bigger than 12.9" will not want to move to iOS. This is all obvious information to anyone that uses computers.

There are a ton of use cases where iPads and iOS are not ideal. If you disagree, feel free to put your money where your mouth is. You keep linking the same video over and over as if that's proof in terms of what and how people want to do all of their computing tasks. Replace all your machines with an iPad Pro 4 and keyboard w/trackpad and let us know how that goes after half a year.
 
Last edited:

UnknownSouljer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2001
Messages
6,483
I bet that's a a lot of fun with multiple-sheet workbooks with a couple hundred columns and a similar number of rows.
Right. You're describing why people don't use iPads for another use case (which frankly I don't disagree with. Considering I made an entire note in my previous post that there are a bunch of use cases that iPads are not ideal for). But generally even on a desktop I find that number of columns and rows to be unwieldy anyway. The same can be said also for access databases that have thousands of entries with a few dozen fields each. So, not exactly sure what your point is.
 

Red Falcon

[H]F Junkie
Joined
May 7, 2007
Messages
10,530
Sure. Go buy an iPad Pro and keyboard with touchpad and use it as your only machine. Let me know how it goes.
Yeah, I think the hardware itself is less the limitation with them, as much as is the OS and apps, due to their touch and mobile-geared orientation.
With a desktop OS and apps, though, hell yes, that would kick ass.
 

UnknownSouljer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2001
Messages
6,483
Yeah, I think the hardware itself is less the limitation with them, as much as is the OS and apps, due to their touch and mobile-geared orientation.
With a desktop OS and apps, though, hell yes, that would kick ass.
This entire fork of the discussion began because of the belief that iPads are intended to replace Macbooks. Which isn't the case.
Apple would have to change their position on touchscreens with macOS apps. Which is possible that they could do, but from any and all indications haven't desired to do. Is it possible that iPad is intended to become the more dominant of the two platforms and hence macOS becomes more iPad like with a touch interface? Yes, it's "possible", but the very fact that there is a rumor for an Arm Macbook Pro and not for a touchscreen Macbook Pro tells a very different story. As well as all the articles I linked earlier. A touchscreen Macbook Pro that has a screen capable of doing everything an iPad is capable of doing could have been launched a long time ago. The better part of a decade in fact. But Apple has very distinctly chosen to not.
 

Halon

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 13, 2004
Messages
437
I'm just not excited by the prospect, even if they're going to run the sexiest ARM cores around. No native x86 compatibility, no graphics APIs that haven't been sanctioned by Apple, no guarantee of broad application compatibility, and probably as locked down as an iPad... I mean, it'll be a niche that serves a lot of people, but the Mac as a general purpose computing device already feels like it's been consciously eroded for years and left to wear iOS's hand-me-downs. Not much changes for me: I haven't wanted a Mac for at least five years, and that won't change.
 

Snowdog

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
10,658
Apple would have to change their position on touchscreens with macOS apps.
No, because they wouldn't be macOS apps. They would be ported to iPad, and thus be iPad apps.

Is it possible that iPad is intended to become the more dominant of the two platforms and hence macOS becomes more iPad like with a touch interface?
Where do you get this crazy stuff? Because it certainly not what I am talking about.

I am talking about iPad being the dominant Apple consumer Mobile platform, Which it already is BTW. Just that it will grow and cannibalize more Macbook share.

How in hell does that turn macOS into iPad like touch OS?

What it would do is make Mac more the professional choice(with smaller share), while iPads are more the consumer choice(with larger share).
 

pendragon1

Fully [H]
Joined
Oct 7, 2000
Messages
19,580
This entire fork of the discussion began because of the belief that iPads are intended to replace Macbooks. Which isn't the case.
which is what my school division is finding out. at least they were smart enough to pilot it this time. they want(ed) to replace macbook pros/airs with ipad pros with keyboards and pencils and the feedback for usability is not good and then there are all the neutered "apps".
 

UnknownSouljer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2001
Messages
6,483
No, because they wouldn't be macOS apps. They would be ported to iPad, and thus be iPad apps.
That's functionally the same thing. Unless you saying that there would be a massive retooling in terms of how the App is used. But so far you haven't said that.
A big crux of this discussion about macOS apps getting ported to iOS is based around this. This is evidenced by the things I'm talking about.

You brought up Pages, Numbers, and Keynote before. I pointed out that those apps have existed on iOS since 2010 and they operate and are fundamentally different from their desktop apps in quite a few ways. Most notably they are tooled for a touch screen interface and are more limited in capacity in comparison with their desktop counterparts.

Where do you get this crazy stuff? Because it certainly not what I am talking about.

I am talking about iPad being the dominant Apple consumer Mobile platform, Which it already is BTW. Just that it will grow and cannibalize more Macbook share.

How in hell does that turn macOS into iPad like touch OS?
In order for that to take place it isn't about what has sold more, rather how is the device getting used and answering the very important question: is the device a true replacement device? Apple sells over 300 million iPhones a year, just because they have sold a ton of them also doesn't mean they will replace Macs anymore than iPads will.
So far there is only one iPad and one iPad alone that has a keyboard with touchpad capability. It also has an entry price point of over $1000 (as the 11" is $799 and requires a $250 keyboard/trackpad to be complete). Is that a better option than buying a Macbook Air for $999 for most folks do productivity tasks? I would say: no. Especially considering the lowest level iPad Pro has only 128GB of storage space and the Air has double that. And can run macOS apps. And also iPad apps. When Timmy goes to college he isn't buying an iPad over a Macbook because an iPad won't even allow him to have access to a file system. He won't be able to drag and drop or use thumb drives handed to him. Let alone all the issues already brought up without access to macOS apps.

What it would do is make Mac more the professional choice(with smaller share), while iPads are more the consumer choice(with larger share).
The larger amount of iPads sold doesn't indicate what people are doing with the device either. If you have some statistics about what percentage of those people who own an iPad do anything productivity related, you'd have a much stronger case. But I'm sure you recognize that those numbers are incredibly low. People use iPads as content devices.
If all you mean is that people will use iPads to watch Youtube, browse the web, and do random things on social media on, then yes, we agree. That's what most people do with them now. If you're saying that just because they own an iPad they do a bunch of productivity on them and therefore Apple should lean into it more, then no they don't.
The keyboard on all iPads (regardless of Pro or non-pro) is an optional accessory. Meaning that even Apple themselves know that most aren't using it and most aren't using these devices for keyboard level productivity. If they did, they'd just put it in the box and charge the difference. The same goes for Apple pencil.
 
Last edited:

aokman

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 3, 2012
Messages
1,033
Did you miss the word mobile?

"iPads are being pushed as their preferred mobile ARM option..."

I am saying it makes more sense that iPads carry the banner on the Mobile side, than it does to reset the ecosystem with ARM Macs.

They already have a thriving ARM Mobile solution: iPads. You just finished making a big deal out of how powerful iPads were, and how they have completely shared frameworks.

So why not just port any Mac applications you need to an iPad for the mobile side?
Apple are happy to have both iPad and Macbook’s, they don’t ruin each others sales and happily coexist. People seem to think the move to ARM is a move that instantly kills off the pro Intel hardware... it doesn’t.

Apple have built their ecosystem with METAL to basically support everything except NVIDIA GPUs. ARM and Intel will happily be able to coexist for many years on OSX until Apples silicon is ready to take on Xeon one day (which it will).
 

KarsusTG

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 27, 2010
Messages
3,143
Ya, I am all for this. A decent ARM cpu is basically as capable as a mid tier i3 or so and 99% of mac users don't actually use their hardware in any meaningful way anyway. Honestly, this wont effect most people, they will still be able to surf facebook and watch youtube, but with a cheaper (maybe..), lighter system with better battery life.
 

1_rick

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 7, 2017
Messages
1,197
So, not exactly sure what your point is.
Just that it wasn't a good use case. Sorry if I essentially covered something you'd already said--the replies are coming too fast for me to keep up when I don't even use Macs. I think a desktop machine running ARM could be interesting, but I don't have any use for a Mac at my day job--we use software that's Windows only, for example.
 
Top