Apple plans on leaving Intel architecture even for their PCs and laptops.

[BrianHG]

News: Apple plans on leaving Intel architecture even for their PCs and laptops:

[ataradov]

That would be great, if only  they could make ARM be even remotely comparable to X86 in performance. Or they will explain why it is better if things are slow. I'm sure marketing department is on it.

[Halcyon]

So even further restricting what the end-user can and can't do with their machines and forcing them to buy Apple hardware and software?

[NiHaoMike]

That would be great, if only  they could make ARM be even remotely comparable to X86 in performance. Or they will explain why it is better if things are slow. I'm sure marketing department is on it.

ARM is pushing higher and higher in the server market. Now that Intel has lost its process edge, architectures that are inherently more efficient will have an advantage. (Albeit the difference between x86 and ARM as far as efficiency is concerned is not as big as you might imagine.)

[Mr. Scram]

This is a very interesting development. I haven't been able to find whether Apple plans to enter the x86 market or is going the ARM route with their desktop computers, or is planning to develop its own flavour compatible with none of the others. It's also interesting to see whether that'll be the end of Bootcamp.

[Mr. Scram]

ARM is pushing higher and higher in the server market. Now that Intel has lost its process edge, architectures that are inherently more efficient will have an advantage. (Albeit the difference between x86 and ARM as far as efficiency is concerned is not as big as you might imagine.)

There's more to it than pure efficiency. A lot of software is licensed based on processor or core count and the exact terms make a massive difference when it comes to TCO. It's silly, but the licensing model regularly dictates the hardware choices.

[ataradov]

ARM is pushing higher and higher in the server market.

They are pushing in a market where actual computing performance is secondary, like web servers, VPS, and all that stuff. That's where they are great, because you can put more of them into the same volume. Nobody puts ARMs in high-performance computing, where calculations are a primary task.

I' not sure how those processors will do in desktop applications. If Photoshop or Premiere runs slow, people will not be happy.

[james_s]

Seems it will push them into even more of a niche. A significant selling point is that OSX, Windows or Linux can all be used relatively seamlessly. Also I suspect it would take a long time for all the 3rd party software to be redone for yet another architecture change. When they switched to Intel they did a pretty good job in the transition though.

[Mr. Scram]

They are pushing in a market where actual computing performance is secondary, like web servers, VPS, and all that stuff. That's where they are great, because you can put more of them into the same volume. Nobody puts ARMs in high-performance computing, where calculations are a primary task.

I' not sure how those processors will do in desktop applications. If Photoshop or Premiere runs slow, people will not be happy.

Microsoft has released review samples of Windows 10 for ARM to journalists, and it seems to do fairly well. Even light gaming is doable. I'm very curious where that ends up going.

[ataradov]

Microsoft has released review samples of Windows 10 for ARM to journalists, and it seems to do fairly well. Even light gaming is doable. I'm very curious where that ends up going.

I've seen quite the opposite opinions. I mean it works with a performance of high-end Atom chip, but nothing special really.

[BillB]

This could also be a ploy to gain favorable leverage in price negotiation.

[NiHaoMike]

Is there a technical reason why ARM is difficult to optimize for performance?

[ataradov]

Is there a technical reason why ARM is difficult to optimize for performance?

Not that I can see. They just have not been at it as long as Intel has. They are catching up fast though. And since Apple has their own people working on this stuff, they may have something really great already.

Plus Apple will benefit from tight coupling of software and hardware, both optimized for each other.

[Cerebus]

Nobody puts ARMs in high-performance computing, where calculations are a primary task.

Nobody? How about Cray, Fujitsu and Atos, all building supercomputers based on ARM cores?

[ataradov]

Nobody? How about Cray, Fujitsu and Atos, all building supercomputers based on ARM cores?

They are trying, for sure. But there is not a single ARM cluster in Top500. It is all Power and Xeon.

[Mr. Scram]

Is there a technical reason why ARM is difficult to optimize for performance?

ARM has traditionally been about efficient portable computing, not about maximizing performance for the sake of it. Unfortunately, when you start increasing ARM performance it also loses much of its efficiency edge.

http://www.hectronic.se/embedded/arm-or-x86/arm-or-x86.php

[Cerebus]

So even further restricting what the end-user can and can't do with their machines and forcing them to buy Apple hardware and software?

Oh please. They'll be forced to buy Apple hardware because it's got an Arm CPU? That's like saying you'd be forced to buy Intel hardware because the current Apples have Intel CPUs, or were forced to buy Motorola or IBM hardware when they used PowerPC architecture CPUs.

[Halcyon]

So even further restricting what the end-user can and can't do with their machines and forcing them to buy Apple hardware and software?

Oh please. They'll be forced to buy Apple hardware because it's got an Arm CPU? That's like saying you'd be forced to buy Intel hardware because the current Apples have Intel CPUs, or were forced to buy Motorola or IBM hardware when they used PowerPC architecture CPUs.

What do you mean "oh please", this is typical of Apple's business model. Has been for decades. Where have you been living? I don't doubt for one moment that it won't just be a typical ARM processor, it'll have some kind of Apple-specific goodness in it.

[ataradov]

I don't doubt for one moment that it won't just be a typical ARM processor, it'll have some kind of Apple-specific goodness in it.

It will not be a typical ARM. That's the whole point of them investing millions of dollars into R&D of their own chip.

But you are not forced to buy it. Just buy Lenovo or Dell.

[Cerebus]

So even further restricting what the end-user can and can't do with their machines and forcing them to buy Apple hardware and software?

Oh please. They'll be forced to buy Apple hardware because it's got an Arm CPU? That's like saying you'd be forced to buy Intel hardware because the current Apples have Intel CPUs, or were forced to buy Motorola or IBM hardware when they used PowerPC architecture CPUs.

What do you mean "oh please", this is typical of Apple's business model. Has been for decades. Where have you been living? I don't doubt for one moment that it won't just be a typical ARM processor, it'll have some kind of Apple-specific goodness in it.

And how will that force people to buy Apple hardware? And 'Oh please' because you're just Apple bashing rather than putting forward a reasoned logical argument.

[Mr. Scram]

Could the Queen's subjects please be nice? 

[Halcyon]

And how will that force people to buy Apple hardware? And 'Oh please' because you're just Apple bashing rather than putting forward a reasoned logical argument.

I have almost 20 years in the IT industry. I've used both PC and Mac's since the early 1990's. I've repaired both and continue to repair all types of computers, laptops and portable devices, including Apple products to this day. I've seen how Apple has evolved both as a company and in terms of their hardware since the Apple Macintosh Classic. I use Apple's OS and software weekly and know their limitations well. I might not know Apple products as intimately as I do stuff in the PC world, but I'd say I'm pretty experienced and have University and industry qualifications to back it up.

Do you think Apple are making the switch to make it easier for consumers to use whatever hardware or software they want? Or to make their own choices when it comes to upgrades? In recent times they've screwed the consumer in such a way they make it near impossible even for so-called "power users" to upgrade or repair their machines. Have you pulled apart a recent Apple desktop machine? RAM and SSDs soldered to boards, machines glued together rather than screwed, proprietary "Apple only" parts. The proprietary ARM-based CPU is just another way Apple can control how consumers use and what they do with their machines and ultimately ensure their repeat business. They have no intention of helping Apple users run Windows (for example) on their machines or supporting hardware that isn't made by Apple.

I can't think of a recent design decision in any Apple product which was good for the consumer. They just churn out the same crap over and over with a prettier box and a higher price tag.

Is that reasoned and logical enough?

[ataradov]

What makes you think Apple users want to run Windows? And what makes you think Apple has to make it easier for their customers? 

Apple controls less than 10% of the market. You have plenty of other options if you don't like them.

[Mr. Scram]

I guess there are reasons to glue devices together when you're going for an ultra compact form factor, though I suspect there are other ways of doing it. However, in most cases it doesn't add a lot yet hugely impacts repairability and longevity. I suspect it won't be too long before regulators step in, as it's a consumer right and environmental matter as much as anything else.

[Halcyon]

The problem is Apple is considered fashionable, and PC manufactures clone Apple ideas from head to toe, including top tier PC manufacturers like Microsoft and the top sales trio (HP, Dell, Lenovo).
No matter how stupid an idea Apple makes, including soldered RAM, soldered SSD, obscure screws, adhesive seal, etc., PC manufacturers will clone.

This is why Apple's decisions matter to PC users. Just like iPhone has got rid of 3.5mm jacks, a number of Android phones have followed.

Well yes, I think you're right to a degree. I'm not saying all Apple's designs are bad, some are actually very good and I can see why other's copy. As for the 3.5mm jack, I think those that follow suite will piss off a lot of customers just like Apple did. This is largely the reason why the likes of Samsung have kept the jack or those that have removed it in favour of USB-C (like Sony) have at least given you an adapter in the box.