
The iPhone's new chip should worry Intel - Tomte
http://www.theverge.com/2016/9/16/12939310/iphone-7-a10-fusion-processor-apple-intel-future
======
richardw
That would be a huge distraction for Apple. The phone is where the action is
and they need to compete as hard as they can.

Shifting any engineering talent towards laptop/desktop chips is fighting last
decade's war, for a shrinking (relatively) pie.

The only reason to do that would be if it gave them some research edge that
they could use elsewhere. Like cloud servers or something.

As the article says, already more iphones than PC's. Why bother.

The way to use this power is to keep pushing where they have the advantage
(mobile) and hammer PC's until you have all the power you need in your
phone/tablet. Software will grow up around the ecosystem until it eats PC's,
and Apple can ignore the PC market entirely. Forget about PC's, focus on
beating Android and they'll beat PC's as a bonus.

~~~
0xFFC
As sidenote I should mention after reading your comment (which I agree
completely) I felt sad for Microsoft, they are really in bad position, they
lost mobile war and their most important income (PC sector) shrinking.They are
late, and they are losing already.(I know MSFT is strong in enterprise sector)

~~~
kelseydh
Yeah I think you're losing perspective that outside of startup hipster tech
bubbles, Windows is still the most popular desktop computing platform.

Mobile/tablet devices have struggled heavily at overcoming the one thing
that's preventing their full adoption: making them great for content creation,
not just content consumption.

~~~
ZanyProgrammer
Is Google still a startup? How many .Net devs do they employ? Netflix?
Facebook? All hipster startups?

~~~
bunderbunder
A lot of big tech companies aren't building their products on .NET, for a
variety of reasons that mostly boil down to it not being the right tool for
the job. Recently the .NET web dev situation has improved. (Whether it has
improved relative to the alternatives is arguable.) But when those companies
were getting started the original iteration of ASP.NET was the only game in
town, and it was very much _not_ something you'd want to use for what any of
those companies do. Nor was it intended to be.

.NET's always been more of a player on the in-house enterprise dev front, and
probably always will be. (That might change with .NET Core, but it also might
not.) Which means that you're not going to see much about .NET on TechCrunch.
Inventory & financial management for Fortune 500 companies might be the silent
majority for software development work, but it's rarely newsworthy.

------
dalbin
BTW, there is a strange new CPU architecture in macOS kernel header
(mach/machine.h) : CPUFAMILY_ARM_HURRICANE

[https://developer.apple.com/library/content/releasenotes/Gen...](https://developer.apple.com/library/content/releasenotes/General/APIDiffsMacOS10_12/Objective-C/Kernel.html)

~~~
Zoon
Doesn't a lot of software depend on Intel's architecture? I think macs are
stuck, for better or for worse.

~~~
danieldk
They did it before in the PowerPC to Intel change. Migration was helped by:

\- Fat binaries (Mach-O binaries can support multiple platforms).

\- A PowerPC emulator for applications that are not ported.

I think they are even better positioned for an architecture change than during
PowerPC -> Intel. They now have the app store where they can impose certain
requirements (like supporting two architectures). And they now have their own
compiler backend, which opens the possibility of supporting architecture-
independent IR (along the lines of bitcode).

~~~
mtgx
And Apple could transition even easier now thanks to it controlling most Mac
apps through the Mac Store. All Apple needs to do is announce they're going to
enforce ARM support in the Mac Store a year or two before doing it, and that's
it.

Also, isn't Apple already encouraging the use of some intermediary bitcode for
iOS (and macOS?) apps? Wouldn't that already made apps architecture-agnostic?

~~~
madeofpalk
> controlling most Mac apps through the Mac Store

You're not being serious are you? MAS holds such an insignificant role in Mac
App development that any requirements it sets around the transition would
weaken its cause.

Also mo, bitcode would not be able to be used to facilitate an Intel to ARM
transition - bitcode is still fairly processor-specific. Bitcode is more for
being able to adapt to minor changes in instructions in the same arch

~~~
Teever
Hypothetically, how do you think the market would respond if Apple said that
apps could only be sold through the store?

~~~
madeofpalk
With the restrictions it currently imposes (sandboxing), I think we would see
a significant withdrawal from the Mac platform. Many developers would stop
making apps (especially those that are for power users, which when turn more
devs away from macs). I doubt Adobe Creative Suite (Photoshop) would be
technically possible with sandboxing, so Adobe would withdraw from Mac. MS
Office would probably be gone as well. Parallels and other virtualisation
software would find it extreme difficult to run.

Valve would have to pull Steam because you can be as sure as hell they aren't
going to give Apple a 30% cut of Steam sales. There goes Skype as well.

Without special deals with lots of developers, I doubt we would see many more
apps on the App Store and instead we'll see the Mac be an unsuitable platform
for many/most people. It would turn into a glorified Chromebook.

~~~
pjmlp
Except that all the real desktop alternatives are adopting the same sandbox
models.

So, just like any technology adoption that comes from above those developers
would just shut up and follow along.

Or do you think they would earn any money selling to GNU/Linux users?

~~~
madeofpalk
In this hypothetical situation Microsoft doesnt make the stupid move of
requiring all apps go through their store which imposes its own limitations
(like sandboxing).

Mind you, it would be a completely insane move for Apple (or Microsoft) and I
can't see them doing this any time soon. It would be absolute suicide.

~~~
pjmlp
Except there are no alternatives for those that sell software, as I mentioned
on my comment FOSS users don't pay for desktop software.

~~~
madeofpalk
There's all the ways people sell software on Microsoft platforms.

Adobe has managed to get thousands from users without any 'help' from
Microsoft.

~~~
pjmlp
How is Adobe going to do it when Windows follows the same footsteps than Mac
OS X?

The only way will be the store, or why do you think Microsoft is making it
easy to port Win32/WPF (legacy) applications to the store model?

When the applications that matter like Adobe are on the store, and Apple has
proven the "my way or the highway" works, they will slowly disable the
"legacy" model.

I have been through enough computing changes to believe this will indeed
happen.

------
samwillis
My prediction is that we will see a new MacBook (Air) next year (probably
October-November), with an ARM CPU running MacOS 11. Apple with bump MacOS
(nee OSX) a major version number and keep it in parity with iOS, which will
also be version 11 next year. Essentially iOS and MacOS becoming front ends to
the same OS (which they almost are).

They will start with the ARM CPU on a single MacBook (an entry level one) for
a few years before pushing it our across the whole range once app
compatibility has been achieved.

~~~
adamlett
The shift to Intel was a move of necessity, a huge risk, and ultimately a
major pain for Apple's customers not talk about third party developers. Apple
took a huge hit to their goodwill. That was predictable, but they went ahead
and did it anyway. Why? Because they had to. PowerPC was falling further and
further behind. It was alright for Macs to be more expensive than PCs, but
more expensive _and_ slower? Furthermore, PowerPC was holding Apple back from
taking the Mac where they wanted it to go (ultralight laptops).

None of the issues that caused the Intel transition apply to Apple now. Intel
is not holding Apple back, because Apple already uses its own chips in what it
considers the future of computing: iOS devices. At the same time Macs use
exactly the same chips as PCs, which means there is no risk that PCs will
suddenly leapfrog the Macs. There is in other word no major _need_ to make a
shift. But the risks in doing so would be the same. Apple would once again be
pissing of its customers and 3rd party developers. And for what? A marginal
improvement in battery life? To save a fragment on bill of materials on a
product line which already enjoys healthy margins, but which also is a tiny
fragment of their overall business?

~~~
h1d
Last time I checked, PC desktop were dominated by Windows by about 90% market
share and that market, while shifting to mobile, isn't tiny either. If they
could come up with a desktop that is as small as Apple TV while providing
enough performance of a large box desktop or shaves off 300g off of laptop
without compromise or doubles battery power, that would be shocking even to
average consumers. As I have been losing interest on Apple products for the
past 5 years not seeing much of innovations, I think it's time they take the
risk while they can. It's a shocking news if x86 drags Intel (and to some
extent Windows) to secondary position, if Apple does it right.

~~~
shanusmagnus
I think you vastly overestimate how much average consumers and businesses know
or care about any of those issues. Apple could release a chip that was 500%
faster than the equivalent Intel chip while only consuming 75% of the power
and it wouldn't move the needle on the distribution of Mac vs. Windows
purchases. The vast majority of people and businesses who buy Windows buy in
for the ecosystem and nothing else.

------
overgard
I'm pretty skeptical of the notion that iOS could replace macOS any time soon.
Here's an experiment if you don't believe me: grab a mac, run the iOS emulator
on it full-screen and try to do all your normal tasks in the emulator, without
jumping out to the desktop. Let me know how that feels after a few hours.

You could argue that with some engineering time they can add some affordances
to the iOS interface to make it more pleasant on desktop. Sure. But every app
is also going to need to adapt for this -- they need to drag along the entire
ecosystem. Honestly it would be way easier to make macOS run on ARM than it
would be to make iOS run on desktop. They already did this whole processor
shift thing once and it worked out just fine. Just package things in universal
binaries and emulate the old CPU for legacy software. Not to mention with
something like LLVM it's not crazy to imagine distributing applications in a
near-native bytecode that gets JIT'd to the target machine.

I know microsoft has gotten pretty close to accomplishing the entire one-os-
for-everything model, but look how much time and money it's taken them, and
the amount of good will they burned through getting there.

~~~
Tloewald
What does this have to do with anything? Mac OS is totally portable (at one
point. OpenStep provided transparent support for four CPU architectures), and
server-side software even more so. Similarly, Apple could presumably port
whatever subsets of Mac OS are needed as the mood takes them.

~~~
overgard
I never said macOS wasn't portable, so I'm not sure what you're getting at? My
point is that iOS would suck on desktop without a lot of work, and a lot of
that work would fall on app developers, not just apple.

~~~
swombat
overgard's point is that you wouldn't run iOS on the desktop, you'd run macOS
there, but on chips designed for mobiles (A*).

~~~
overgard
seems like a likely point for that overgard fellow

------
mdemare
Both the iPhone 7 and the next next iPad Pro will be significantly faster than
the current Macbook (and Macbook Air) and that's probably also the case for
the next iteration, if it sticks with Intel. That alone is reason to switch to
ARM. Compiling to ARM will be relatively easy, but still emulation will be
needed for many applications, and that might be harder than emulating PowerPC.

I wonder where the performance ceiling is going to be for the Apple processor
line. Looking at Intel, I'd have expected them to have hit it already, but
given the huge increases in single threaded performance so far year on year,
it's hard to believe that it'll peter down to <15% per year from now on.

If performance is going to keep improving at the current rate, then the A11X
will be significantly faster than Intel's 2017 Cannonlake mobile lineup.
Switching away from Intel would give Macs another big leg-up relative to
Windows laptops.

Macs will never switch to iOS though. Processes on macOS have a freedom that's
incomparable to that on iOS, and once the genie is out of the bottle, you
can't put it back in again. But Apple will keep working to make iOS sufficient
for increasingly more people, and Macs will keep getting more niche. Apple
could even introduce a laptop-like form factor like the Surface Book with iOS
on it (the iBook Pro?).

Interesting times...

~~~
valine
I doubt we will ever see a laptop running iOS. iOS was designed solely for a
touch interface. At the same time, apple has been outspoken about not wanting
touch screens on laptops because of ergonomic issues and other things.

[http://www.theverge.com/2015/11/15/9738504/tim-cook-says-
app...](http://www.theverge.com/2015/11/15/9738504/tim-cook-says-apple-wont-
combine-a-macbook-and-ipad)

~~~
Avshalom
They will however happily sell you a $170 keyboard for your ipad...

But snark aside, apple is always outspoken against things... until they
release their own version of it. That's not some apple specific trait of
course.

------
jccalhoun
The iPhone 7/7 Plus single-core score is 3,450 and the multi-core score is
5,630.

The current top intel chip (i7-6700K) single-core score is 5326 and that same
chip multi-core score is 17003 and the i7-6950X multi-core score is 29877.
[http://browser.primatelabs.com/processor-
benchmarks](http://browser.primatelabs.com/processor-benchmarks)

That's still a pretty good lead. Now perhaps with the added room of a laptop
they could make an arm chip that was closer in performance but would it be
worth it?

~~~
Retric
The i7-6700K is a 91 watt chip. Remove that and they are fairly close, worse
the A10 line has been improving much faster than Intel's chips over the last
five years.

Also, don't forget it's really the mid range chips that matter and the A10 is
very much a mid range chip without the benefit of excessive binning.

~~~
agumonkey
What's the power consumption of the last AX CPUs btw ? I just laughed thinking
about the iPhone 7 main "board" that fits under the space key. An A10f laptop
would be a the board + 4 batteries and a IO hub... how long would that last ?

~~~
Retric
The AX line is really a system on a chip, but the CPU is something like 0.1 to
0.2 watts. Remember these get ~1/3 of a ~2,0000 mAh battery and can last for
several hours.

~~~
rayiner
Only if it's asleep the whole time. The TDP is closer to 4-5 watts.

~~~
Retric
iPhone 6 has a 1810 mAh battery at 3.82volts = just under 7 watt hours. If the
phone including display, cellphone chips, wifi, Bluetooth, Ram, and COU etc
add up to 4 watts you would not get 2 hours of use from the phone.

~~~
rayiner
You can indeed chew through the battery in about 2.5 hours at high load:
[http://www.anandtech.com/show/9686/the-apple-
iphone-6s-and-i...](http://www.anandtech.com/show/9686/the-apple-
iphone-6s-and-iphone-6s-plus-review/8). And the iPhone can't actually sustain
maximum performance (and thus maximum power consumption) because of thermal
limits: [http://arstechnica.com/apple/2015/09/a-3d-touch-above-the-
ip...](http://arstechnica.com/apple/2015/09/a-3d-touch-above-the-
iphone-6s-and-6s-plus-reviewed/4). On the 6s, the CPU clockspeed drops from
about 1.8 GHz to 1.4 GHz after 30 minutes of sustained load.

To the extent you're comparing A10 power usage to Intel's published numbers,
keep in mind that Intel's TDP is what the processor uses to operate at the
rated clock speed at full load indefinitely. In typical usage (where the CPU
operates in short bursts and sleeps the rest of the time), the average power
consumption will be a lot lower.

~~~
Retric
7 / 2.5 is still under 3w for the total prone draw.

All of which suggests in a laptop with active cooling and higher energy budget
say 20W you could sustain 2+ ghz x6 cores or 20,000 to 24,000 with minor
adjustments. Which is in the ballpark of Intel's high end desktop performance
and faster than their mobile chips.

The real issue is Intel is dealing with a well funded competitor who does not
care about x86. And the computer history has a long line of companies who
where eaten from below as people where happy to pay a lot less for fewer
features.

------
ekianjo
Pretty bad article. Why recommend the move to iOS on laptops instead of simply
recompiling MacOS to the ARM architecture. Not an issue in the Linux world,
dont see why Apple would have any issue with that if they really wanted to.

~~~
M4v3R
As some commenters pointed out, Apple already has a big part of the OS ported
to ARM. iOS shares stuff with macOS - XNU Kernel and Foundation libraries. To
have a complete port they would need to port the drivers, AppKit and their
applications. And it seems it wouldn't be very hard for them because they
already did that once (from PowerPC) so they have some experience with that.

~~~
Aeolos
I'm sure there already _is_ a complete, working port of MacOS on ARM.
Application compatibility is the real sticker.

~~~
spiralpolitik
Much easier this time around given that Carbon is no longer in the picture.
There will be holdouts like Adobe and Microsoft, but those companies are not
the powerhouses they used to be on the Mac.

The switch to ARM is largely a matter of 'when' not 'if' at this point.

------
mhandley
Given that Apple control their own CPU designs, how hard would it be for them
to add a hardware x86 ISA emulation layer over their ARM CPU for use with
MacOS? That way the OS and newer software could be compiled for ARM, and
legacy software could be run in x86 mode with reasonable performance without
the need for rosetta-style emulation.

~~~
vertex-four
So many patents involved in implementing x86 efficiently, that Intel have no
interest in sharing at prices that would make this make any sense.

~~~
threeseed
They don't need to work with Intel. Apple could just buy Parallels.

~~~
luma
Parallels is performant because it isn't emulating the entire processor. Most
instructions are passed through to the underlying hardware without
translation.

~~~
TazeTSchnitzel
Current Parallels is an x86 virtualisation product, yes.

But it used to be an x86 emulation product.

------
jonstokes
This is one reason I quit the whole CPU commentating thing. People kept
rewriting the same article (with the same comments thread attached!), and I
kept rewriting the same responses.

~~~
Tempest1981
I think there is something satisfying about the topic, that we enjoy
rehashing. And to opine on what's new since last time, hoping for exciting new
developments.

------
mark_l_watson
I think the future is very powerful mobile devices that have a very smooth
docking experience. In business environments this is good because knowledge
workers don't have to lug around laptops. Instead, walk into a conference
room, sit where there is a monitor/mouse/keyboard and your work environment is
right there on you phone. Sort of like Google's multitude of mini-conference
rooms with audio/visual setups, but augmented with shared peripherals.

~~~
lh7777
I'm still hopeful this will be the case -- that all this multi-device cloud
syncing nonsense today is just a fad and we'll all be carrying around phones
with terrabytes of storage and desktop grade performance. Not holding my
breath, though.

------
_ph_
While technically it would be fascinating to have an ARM based MacBook - just
imagine what Apple could do with more power/thermal budget - the big deal
breaker will be the compatibility with x86 baseded code. Currently Macs are
very popular because they can run (partially via VMs) basically any program
written in the last decade. This is not easy to give up, especially on the
MacBook Pros. There could of course be an entry level ARM MacBook. Unless of
course, they make some processor which can run both ARM and Intel code, but
that sounds a bit far fetched.

~~~
manmal
They could start requiring bitcode for Mac App Store submissions, and compile
things to ARM and x86 as long as they have to support both platforms. Or they
could just bring iOS to their desktop class computers. Also, why not emulate
x86 apps on ARM? Sure, that would be terrible for games, but might work well
for most productivity apps.

~~~
_ph_
The operation system is not the problem. They for sure have a full macOS for
ARM working. Its the applications. Most desktop apps are not sold via the App
Store, and there are the VMs (Windows, Linux) to think about. For my work for
example, I need to be able to run x86 binaries at full speed. So an ARM based
Mac would not work for me.

------
jkot
From what I read geekbench is basically comparing hardware acceleration for
encryption. Not very useful for general purpose computing.

[http://www.realworldtech.com/forum/?threadid=136526&curposti...](http://www.realworldtech.com/forum/?threadid=136526&curpostid=136666)

~~~
drakenot
That link is referencing Geekbench 3, not Geekbench 4.

I did some searching and found the following quote concerning the Geekbench 4
benchmark:

“These updated workloads include several well-known codebases that are used
every day on mobile devices, such as LLVM, SQLite, and PDFium. These updated
workloads model real-world tasks and applications, and provide an objective
measure of the performance of the CPU in your phone or laptop.”

That sounds like it is testing a lot more than hardware accelerated
encryption.

------
samfisher83
I am not sure how good of a benchmark geekbench is, but ever since AMD stopped
pushing Intel, they have been a little complacent. When AMD introduced Athlon
64 it really forced Intel to step its game up. The core 2 duo was pretty
impressive. AMD hasn't had a competitive product in years and Intel has just
been providing some incremental improvements here and there.

With shrinking transistor sizes they can shorten their pipeline maybe add a
few more front end decoders, add even more cache. If you have a shorter
pipeline the branch misses aren't as bad. There is a lot of stuff they could
do which they probably aren't since they haven't had a real incentive to do
so.

------
hochchristoph
I think sometime next year when the A10X is released the question of MacBook
Pro or iPad Pro will come down to the following:

“What device of, which both have the same performance and storage, do I
choose? The one with the USB ports, the inflexible keyboard, bloated software
and costs 600$ more, or the other one with a touchscreen, optional keyboard,
and much much simpler software?”

Also I think that Apple won’t do any ARM MacBook at all. If we consider a RICE
scheme for gauging priorization for such a feature like ARM CPUs in MacBooks:

Reach: Modest, there aren’t that many Mac users compared to iOS

Impact: Positive impact on Mac users is limited. Performance won’t be that
better, mostly equal. Software availability could be limited for a while
during a transition.

Confidence: Apple has made a couple architecture transitions on the Mac
before, so they know how it works. But they don’t know how app developers will
react. Will Adobe, Microsoft etc. get onboard, or jump ship?

Effort: Rather high. It’s one of the things where 10% of the implementation
will need 90% of the effort. Mostly it’s just a recompile to run. But
optimizing software for x86 is different than for ARM. The performance
critical parts of many system frameworks which have no existing iOS port have
to be rewritten to be efficient on the new architecture.

------
mixmastamyk
A few big problems with the article:

\- Comparing the brand new A10 to a 2013-era Intel.

\- Asserting iOS for workstations.

While many people could probably get by on iOS, it is particularly crippled
for people that need to do technical work. However, I found the idea
intriguing, of having a workstation with multiple ARM or Apple chips in it
with a proper OS. I know they exist already, but having Apple behind them
would make a big difference.

~~~
dman
Could you elaborate on the last bit - the fact that such workstations exist
already. Can you share any pointers?

~~~
mixmastamyk
I couldn't find much:

[http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813190...](http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813190006)

and there is Raspberry Pi for micro apps, perhaps they aren't as developed as
I'd heard.

------
trynumber9
Is there a reason no one publishes SPECint results for the A9/A10?

~~~
Brakenshire
Here are SPECint results for the A9X:

[http://www.anandtech.com/show/9766/the-apple-ipad-pro-
review...](http://www.anandtech.com/show/9766/the-apple-ipad-pro-review/4)

------
Boothroid
Would have been nice to read a bit more about the chip!

------
neals
I sometimes wonder if iOS and OSX will end up merging and Apple notebook,
iPhone and iPad hardware becoming more of the same thing, all running on Apple
chips and the same appstore.

~~~
tqkxzugoaupvwqr
After I saw the benchmarks of Apple’s A10 Fusion chip and it was clear they
continued focusing on desktop class performance in phones, my thoughts were:

1\. Apple is working hard to make the switch from Intel to their own ARM chips
and in a few short years we will see MacBooks and MacBook Pros with ARM
architecture.

2\. The iPhone becomes the new ultra portable desktop computing device. You
plug it into a dock (maybe backside of an Apple 27" monitor) and boot up an
ARM version of macOS from your iPhone.

~~~
izacus
> 2\. The iPhone becomes the new ultra portable desktop computing device. You
> plug it into a dock (maybe backside of an Apple 27" monitor) and boot up an
> ARM version of macOS from your iPhone.

Why would they do that - Apple is very profit oriented and if they can sell
you Apple monitor, Apple iMac, Apple iPhone and all the dongles to connect
them together, that maximizes their profit.

Plugin your iPhone into a monitor is not a good way to extract maximum profit
- well maybe if it'll only work with Apple monitor and nothing else.

~~~
acdha
Apple does not work in a vacuum: PCs still exist, Android still exists, and
things like ChromeOS are competing in certain spaces. Apple is also different
from most competitors because they also make money after the device purchase
from purchases of app, music, video, ebook, etc.

If the question was just “iPhone or iPhone + MacBook?” there's no doubt they'd
prefer the latter but if the question is instead “iPhone or iPhone + Windows
PC” I have no doubt they'd throw the Mac under the proverbial bus if it would
keep your money from going to a competitor.

------
mentos
Is there a future where magic leap provides the screen real estate and your
iPhone can project a laser keypad?

Sadly I don't think so.

What about a thin foldable screen rather than a headset?
([http://www.sciencealert.com/lg-unveils-its-new-flexible-
pape...](http://www.sciencealert.com/lg-unveils-its-new-flexible-paper-thin-
tv))

Bottom line is if your phone is as powerful as your laptop how can you
interact with it naturally on the go?

------
faragon
I guess that Apple would be already able to produce laptop SoCs running at
5-15W TDP, with e.g. 4 to 6 CPU cores at 2-3GHz, outperforming newest Core i7
chips for laptops.

That could allow to maintain, or even increase, profit margings, with margin
for lowering product price. Running that path, in my opinion, Apple could take
50% of laptop market. E.g. high quality laptops with BOM (bill of materials)
of 150 USD selling for 400-600 USD. Or even less.

~~~
ksec
Yes, Apple could potentially save between $100-$250 BOM cost. But it is likely
Apple would also want their Mac range to be completely Retina.

Basically Apple will still be selling at a similar price range and not
entering the low end market. But they just offer much better value.

------
lj3
Somebody mentioned on here a few days ago that it's possible Apple would kill
their laptop line entirely. I scoffed at the time, but this article has made
me wonder. If the iPad offered the same screen, had better battery life, was
just as fast if not faster and had a more stable OS... why wouldn't they kill
their laptops entirely? Their laptop sales are a small and shrinking portion
of their business.

~~~
Jenya_
because tablet is not a laptop, relevant story which also mentions laptops:
[http://www.cio.com/article/3058715/ios/why-i-ditched-the-
ipa...](http://www.cio.com/article/3058715/ios/why-i-ditched-the-ipad-
pro-129-for-the-ipad-pro-97.html)

------
jsmith0295
Even if Apple doesn't pursue this for it's MacBook (I'm assuming they wouldn't
for the Pro), I think it's a good indicator for where ARM is headed in
general. As these things get faster than low power Intel chips and Google
continues to add functionality to Chrome OS, like Android app support, it's
likely to have a significant impact on Intels share of the PC market.

------
digi_owl
Nah, the only things that will hurt Intel are "good enough" SoCs out of Asia
and possibly ARM in bulk in the server racks.

Apple's "special sauce" only remains special as long as it remains an Apple
exclusive, and in no way will that be a Intel threat no matter how much the SV
goes round the infinite loop...

------
_ph_
As crazy as it might sound, perhaps the easiest way to gain a larger market
would be some Xserve style server hardware with ARM chips. The typical (web-)
serving software gets rebuilt quite often, so legacy code is a minor
importance, and having lots of efficient processors is really a huge thing.

------
lemagedurage
What a bunch of blown up garbage. I don't trust The Verge on anything Apple
related anymore.

~~~
ezjones
exactly my thoughts.

------
makomk
Surely the iPhone's new chip should worry professional and creative Mac users
even more. The Mac Pro is now so outdated that the iPhone is catching up to it
in single-threaded performance, and one wonders if macOS is much longer for
this world.

~~~
lh7777
I'm not worrying about that until Apple announces XCode for iPad.

~~~
TazeTSchnitzel
Swift Playgrounds is the first step.

~~~
ZanyProgrammer
Thank God we still have Windows, I say seriously.

~~~
jorgecastillo
No!

Thank God we will always have BSD/Linux.

~~~
ZanyProgrammer
My kingdom for a laptop loaded with Linux I can buy at a store on which the
sleep/hibernate, fan speed, battery life, wifi and temperature are okay.

------
mtgx
I've said it before here: Intel allowing ARM chip makers to use its 10nm
process is _not_ an "automatic win" for the company, as many seem to believe
it is.

If Apple is already able to match some of Intel's mainstream CPUs with an
_inferior process_ , what do you think is going to happen when Apple can use
the same 10nm process Intel uses?

a) Apple embarrasses Intel with a much cheaper chip (I'm talking ~5x here)
that can surpass some of its most powerful _notebook_ chips, while both using
the same process.

b) Apple replaces Intel in most of its Mac lineup with the exception of
Macbook Pro (and even those chips could be replaced with cheaper AMD Zen chips
soon).

c) Intel is ultimately chased to the more profitable "up-market" (typical
innovator's dilemma), and loses control of the consumer market.

d) All of the above.

I hope Apple _does_ switch to its own ARM chips for the Mac line. It's what
Steve Jobs would've done and would've wanted, but it remains to be seen if Tim
Cook is willing to follow in his footsteps to that degree.

For those still worrying that "Mac performance would suffer" \- newsflash -
Macbook Air has already been using the lower (than Core i3) performance "Core
M5" for at least a generation. So if you have the latest Macbook Air, you're
already benefiting from _less_ performance than you did 2-3 years ago with
Core i5.

It wouldn't surprise me one bit if Apple announces an A11-powered Macbook Air
next year that is 30%+ faster than the _previous_ "Intel Core" Macbook Air. It
would also be a great and very smart way to launch the ARM-powered Macbooks
because people would have little to complain about (other than perhaps a few
initial compatibility issues, but I think they will get over those quickly as
developers update their apps).

~~~
rarepostinlurkr
Next year? No way. 2020 give or take a year.

------
4gk
I see the iPad Pro gain more functionality and be the "computer" for most
people. Its possible that slowing the development of Macs further may actually
help future iPad Pro sales.

------
mrfusion
This is great but keep in mind vr/ar is going to be changing the game in the
next few years. We'll be back to chasing max power.

~~~
redial
If VR/AR is ever going to change the game, is going to be _in mobile_ , where
efficiency matters most.

------
MaysonL
I wonder how soon Apple will have custom GPUs in their Macs? Or maybe a
standalone display driven by an Ax chip?

------
mrfusion
Off topic but I'm starting to think people find any excuse to use the word
"portmanteau". Maybe that should be a new law like betteridges law. (Wikipedia
is littered with it)

------
ezjones
Next month: A leak shows that Xcode has a flag to compile to arm.

Next developer conference: Apple announces that all macs are moving to their
chips. Developers, get ready to port your apps.

