
Why Apple Will Switch to ARM-Based Macs (2014) - dmmalam
http://mattrichman.net/post/94262130903/why-apple-will-switch-to-arm-based-macs
======
0x0
I think ARM performance is still way off from the i5/i7 x86_64 you get at the
higher-end macs, and rosetta-style x86_64 emulation on arm is probably even
further off. Lack of virtualbox/vmware support is also a bit of a showstopper,
at least for cross-browser testing and web development.

My guess is that ARM based high-end macs are at least 3-5 years away from
today.

At least with Adobe CC being a monthly subscription and all, there won't be an
extra upgrade cost for the arch switch :)

~~~
noahl
Given the large base of x86 applications they will want to support, Apple
might ship computers with both x86 and ARM chips. If the ARM chip was running
the OS, it could turn off the x86 chip when it wasn't needed to reduce power
consumption, and Apple might hope that applications would migrate to the ARM
chip over time, until it could finally remove x86 entirely.

However, I would be worried about the power consumption of the two chips, even
with the ability to turn off the x86 one on demand. Maybe Apple would be able
to reduce the power consumption when the computer was running only on the ARM
chip enough that it would be worth it overall.

~~~
__bjoernd
But then all software will have to be shipped as ARM and as x86 binaries.
Sure, that is possible engineering-wise, but at least the binaries are going
to double in size. And there may be slight issues when you migrate
applications between the ARM and x86 world with respect to data layout etc.

~~~
FigBug
They already did that on the PPC -> x86 switch, and again on the 32bit to
64bit switch. iOS does it as well for the different version of arm. For most
applications the code is smaller than the rest of the resources, so it's not
really that big an issue.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_binary](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_binary)

~~~
__bjoernd
Running two ISAs at the same time is _way_ more complicated than simply
shipping two versions of the binary within the same file.

~~~
0x0
OSX always did that, more or less. It seems like it's only in the last few
months with Chrome switching to 64bit that it's been possible to stay 64bit
clean. Same with iOS, even the 64bit arm devices have to keep 32bit armv6/7
versions of all the frameworks around to be able to launch older appstore
apps.

Sometimes they slip up, and I think it was Skype that ran into problems where
some releases of OSX shipped a faulty or missing 32bit driver for some
particular iSight/FacetimeCam models.

(on the other hand, as you say, it might be more difficult to run a multi
processor setup sharing RAM and buses across completely incompatible ISAs.)

------
WhitneyLand
The big flaw in this reasoning is assuming Apple would win big enough from a
switch to make the upheaval worth while.

The Apple ARM chips are great but there is no publicly known reason to believe
Intel cannot keep pace. This leaves price and manufacturing economies as the
only reasons which is much different than the Motorola scenario.

You say Apple will do this to offer Macs for $50 less? That's a meaningless
differentiation for their product line.

I believe you also underestimate the importance of dual-booting/running VMs,
which is quite widespread. A lot of people run Windows for just one or two
apps, but it's apps they have to have.

Also what about gaming? New games could target ARM/Neon but massive libraries
of existing games would become unplayable.

Even the price argument is not a slam dunk because Intel has already been
willing to forego profits and subsidize in the mobile space, they might be
willing to do the same in the desktop space if they truly felt threatened.

------
WallWextra
Even if Apple could match Intel's performance in the laptop power envelope
(implausible), that still wouldn't be enough. They'd have to beat it by a big
enough margin to make binary translation feasible. When they switched from PPC
to x86, they got enough of a performance boost to make Rosetta Stone work ok,
despite the overhead. I'd be surprised if it's even possible to beat the
current crop of x86 processors in single-threaded performance by such a huge
margin, ever. Let alone beat whatever Intel has out by that time.

~~~
cmsj
(Rosetta Stone is software for learning human languages. Apple's tech for
runtime binary architecture translation was called Rosetta. It was written and
supplied by a UK company called Transitive, which was acquired by IBM to bring
foreign instruction set support to their non-x86 high end platforms)

~~~
WallWextra
Oops! Good catch.

------
JoelSutherland
The Anandtech quote compares the A7 to an Atom chip, not a Core chip. That's
not to say that Apple can't eventually match Core performance at higher TDPs
but the distance is greater than the article suggests.

~~~
bhauer
And it's a quote from a year and a half ago.

------
__bjoernd
"There wouldn’t have been a “secure enclave” on the iPhone’s processor to
store the fingerprint data, nor would there have been perfect hardware-
software integration."

Well, Intel aren't totally sleeping. They will provide SGX for exactly that
reason in the near future: [https://software.intel.com/en-
us/blogs/2013/09/26/protecting...](https://software.intel.com/en-
us/blogs/2013/09/26/protecting-application-secrets-with-intel-sgx)

~~~
mojuba
That's a 2013 announcement, and still no news. Another reason to dump Intel.

~~~
__bjoernd
There seem to be research prototypes available, though:

[https://www.nccgroup.com/en/blog/2015/01/intel-software-
guar...](https://www.nccgroup.com/en/blog/2015/01/intel-software-guard-
extensions-sgx-a-researchers-primer/)

------
protomyth
How would they do Bootcamp? This is not an insignificant factor in the
decision to purchase a Mac.

~~~
gress
Is it? What proportion of mac laptops are used to run windows?

~~~
rednukleus
Almost everyone I know that owns a Mac dual boots Windows, uses it in a VM, or
doesn't use OSX at all. Macs would not have anywhere near the success they
have had without Windows compatibility.

~~~
_delirium
As a counterpoint, I don't know a single Mac owner who dual-boots Windows, and
only a handful who use a VM for anything (using something like VirtualBox
seems to be limited almost exclusively to devs, not normal users). The Mac
users I know (and those I see in coffee shops) seem to mainly run Photoshop,
Illustrator, a web browser, Powerpoint or Keynote, and Word or Pages, all on
OS X. I'm similar except that I also run iTerm2 and ssh to a Linux box in the
cloud for my non-Mac needs. But some kind of data on the broader population of
mac owners would be interesting.

~~~
eropple
With respect: I expect you probably do know a lot of folks who dual-boot Macs,
they just don't talk about it. Everybody assumes I'm all Mac, all the time,
because of my day job. And I do rarely dual-boot--because I have VMware Fusion
and just virtualize my Boot Camp partition.

------
cpeterso
ARM based Macs will probably herald the merge of iOS and OS X (version 11?)
with universal apps that can run on devices and desktops. And Apple can drop
the 'X' and probably just use the better known name iOS.

~~~
tomphoolery
I wonder how Apple will deal with this from a software perspective. Will
developers be making "responsive apps" that appear one way on a phone/tablet
but another way on a computer? It would certainly make it a lot easier for new
startups to gain traction if they only had to develop their app once.

~~~
TheOtherHobbes
Apple and the other big names will deal with it by moving processing to the
cloud, and selling processor cycles as a public utility accessed through
relatively simple devices - like a Chromebook, only more so.

This can't happen until there's much better access to bandwidth. But it is
happening already - Siri is just the start - and it's going to continue.

I'm expecting Windows 11 (12?) and Mac OS 11 to be cloud-based.

I have no idea where this leaves Linux. (Possibly nowhere, except on servers
and embedded devices?)

There will probably be a legacy market for expensive high-end performance
personal computing for the relatively few applications where it's essential to
have a beefy processor on a desk next to you.

But aside from games and maybe music/video editing, most domestic and office
computing is already so light-weight that it can be cloudified without issues.

Of course this also means your data will be cloudy too, and you'll be stuck
inside a walled garden with very strong access controls for apps and content -
so you probably won't be able to run any app you want.

I suspect the big names will see this as a feature rather than a bug.

~~~
0x0
For as long as international data is not unlimited and free of charge and
omnipresent, there will be a demand for offline computing. For example:
Offline maps on a phone. Taking photos and videos. Taking notes on the go.
Games.

I don't see cloud based apps providing these services with the same fidelity
that local apps do in at least another 20 years. The speed of light and the
telecom industry won't change that fast.

------
staunch
The winner will be the one to figure out how to make mobile chips that don't
overheat after 20 minutes of high utilization. These badass GPUs and quad core
CPUs aren't much use because you can't actually _use_ them!

Either that or we're going to need 10lbs of mobile water cooling attached to
any smartphone running VR.

~~~
giovannibajo1
The A8 on iPhone 6 doesn't get hot even after extensive use. They even
mentioned this during the keynote, so they consider it an achievement

~~~
staunch
Does it avoid getting hot by clocking down the processors? Or do you mean it
can actually operate all CPU/GPU cores at 100% until the battery drains, like
these darn things should be able to?

------
meesterdude
First, the title is click bait and inaccurate; short of the author having a
magic crystal ball, this is 100% speculation and theory.

The move from PowerPC to Intel was great and helped break down several
barriers that were in the way. While ARM could offer them some advantages, it
has its own downsides that must be factored, and is not as clear a slam dunk.

Also, the author references a projection they made three years ago about how
ARM-Based macs are coming - Which would make sense if it actually since came
true, but there has been no change in the state of ARM on Mac's that would
justify even mentioning this. They are still making a wild guess that still
has not come true.

So maybe they'll roll out a mac mini with an ARM processor - or maybe
something else entirely. Or nothing. It's (relatively) safe to say they'll
keep pushing the ball, but it remains to be seen which direction.

------
phkahler
It will be easy when AMD make a truly ambidextrous chip that can run code for
either architecture. Jim Keller already said the ARM has a "bigger engine" and
zen seems to be a derivative of their new ARM core or at least shares a lot of
design. He also said the ARM requires almost no decode stage. One site even
wrote a piece speculating along these lines. It doesn't make a lot of sense
from a software point of view though - you want one or the other and parts
would be disabled for either ISA. But it would serve Apple well. It would be
this biggest coup the industry has ever seen.

------
mojuba
Or, Apple might manufacture both Intel and ARM based macs. You want
virtualization? Or maybe x86-based games, Audio Units and other binaries that
are slow to catch up? Here is your Intel iMac. You don't care? Fine, get a
cheaper ARM Mac/MBP with a longer battery life. And more compact too. This
could go on for some 5-10 years until Apple's ARM gets better at everything
and all the relevant apps get recompiled.

~~~
tomphoolery
That would be an absolute nightmare for app developers...I think Apple will
most likely convert the whole Mac line over to ARM in a single release while
maintaining some kind of translation or virtualization layer for apps that
need to run on the "old architecture". They did it before with Rosetta:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosetta_%28software%29](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosetta_%28software%29)

~~~
micro-ram
Maybe if all the apps were coming from the Mac App Store. I think the limits
of Sandboxing have slowed that progress significantly. They should have
reasonable allowances to bypass the sandbox for apps that really do need the
entire machine. Instead we are now so restrictive a text editor isn't feasible
and the Mac App Store is faltering.

[http://www.panic.com/blog/coda-2-5-and-the-mac-app-
store/](http://www.panic.com/blog/coda-2-5-and-the-mac-app-store/)

PS-I don't think they will switch to ARM. The new USB-C MacBook is very power
efficient.

------
joars
A switch to arm would be easily justifiable if it was the only road to fan-
less macs and apple controlling the processor development, but intel has made
huge strides in power efficiencies lately as well as opening up the
possibility for using intel IP in SoC's. And isn't the ipad already a mac with
an arm processor?

------
jimsmart
If they do switch to ARM, I hope they'll do something like Rosetta to help
with the switch. The last switch wouldn't've been as easy if it wasn't for
Rosetta.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosetta_(software)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosetta_\(software\))

~~~
_up
They probably make it mandatory for Mac App Store Apps to support both
systems.

------
ForHackernews
Debian will still run on ARM, right? That's all I care about.

------
CyberDildonics
This is so off base it is staggering. The single thread performance divide
between intel chips and arm is enormous.

------
hurin
Is there any advantage for consumers in such a switch? If so could someone
explain what it would be?

------
benwilber0
In 5-10 years maybe.

