Apple Considering Switch Away From Intel For Macs

concealment sends this quote from Bloomberg: "Apple Inc. is exploring ways to replace Intel processors in its Mac personal computers with a version of the chip technology it uses in the iPhone and iPad, according to people familiar with the company's research. Apple engineers have grown confident that the chip designs used for its mobile devices will one day be powerful enough to run its desktops and laptops, said three people with knowledge of the work, who asked to remain anonymous because the plans are confidential. Apple began using Intel chips for Macs in 2005."

Comments

Efficiency Performance

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple for a while now has been moving away from performance parts. No real beefy GPU in the Mac Pro. The best GPU in a MBP is an upper-mid tier card. Their server is gone. Its not surprising to see them move more and more away from HPC parts. I'm just a little curious how this will affect people dependent on 'pro-tools' (in the future that is).

Why?

[thammoud]

I can see the switch from PowerPC as IBM and Motorola could not keep up with supplies or advances. To switch from Intel to ARM on PC's will be suicide as performance in PC's far outweigh any negligible benefits in power savings. People using Macs are designers, programmers and heavy users. For those advocating unifying the mobile experience with the desktop, please STOP. I produce content on my desktop. I consume it on my iPad.

Re:Why?

[TellarHK]

For the tasks most people want a computer for (or think they want a computer for) an ARM-based solution could work just as well as an x86 based one. Keep in mind that even if Apple made the switch, they wouldn't be making it to the same silicon they're producing today, because they wouldn't need all of the power saving mechanisms that they've had to use for the mobile device markets they're in now. Instead, envision something along the lines of a hybrid machine with one high-end mobile core designed for lower-power usage, and then additional cores that can be brought online as needed with the associated power draw. There are dozens of ways this kind of arrangement could be managed, and people seem to be quick to forget that Apple made some of the big early strides when it came to getting multiprocessor development under control. (Grand Central, for example)

Additionally, who's to say that they won't have a 16+ core ARM chip running at 3GHz in the next couple years? If die size and power management are less of a premium, that's a lot of raw power that could be thrown at things.

I think they'll start with something like the MBA, and move up the line from there.

Re:Why?

[realmolo]

Apple wants to dump MacOS.

There is FAR more money to be made from a locked-down OS like iOS that guarantees they get a cut of every app sold. The profits from iOS devices DWARF the profits from MacOS.

MacOS will be gone in ten years. Less, probably. You'll still be able to buy a Mac, but it will run iOS, and only run "approved" apps. Unless you pay a couple thousand bucks for their "developer" license, in which case you will get a copy of XCode. And a yearly fee on top of that, of course. And probably a limit on the number of apps you can develop before you have to pay more money.

Apple is NOT about making cool technology anymore. They are about selling content. They're a media company.

Re:Why?

[Anubis IV]

Note the "will one day be powerful enough". I read that as "in 2-5 years we may have something that can compete with laptop or desktop-grade Intel products". From what I understand, and IANACE (I am not a Computer Engineer), there's nothing inherently holding the ARM architecture back from being able to scale up to the sorts of computational performance we see out of Intel's processors, albeit, at the cost of its energy efficiency (of course, it's not there now, but it could be in a few years). Similarly, an Intel exec said a few weeks back that there's nothing technological holding Intel back from being able to scale down to where we see ARM's processors.

That said, Intel doesn't want to do that, since the profit margins are much lower for mobile processors than they are for desktop-grade processors. Yet the danger for them is that the ARM architecture will be scaled up, allowing it to expand into the much more lucrative end of the market, thus pushing them out. That'd be the end for Intel if that sort of thing was allowed to happen. And Apple is in a good position to try something like that.

More importantly and more relevantly to these rumors, I read this whole report as leverage in negotiations with Intel. Credibly scaring the seller into thinking they'll lose your business is a great way to get better prices or other concessions (e.g. early or exclusive access) out of them. Apple is probably content to stay with Intel for as long as Intel is supplying chips that meet Apple's expectations and can do so at reasonable prices. But Apple also wants to hedge its bets in case Intel folds at some point or they're not keeping up with the pace of development that Apple would like to see. Having the ability to run OS X on ARM may very well just be a safety measure in that vein.

Re:Why?

[Sponge Bath]

What may be happening (and misinterpreted by the press) is Apple exploring a hybrid machine with ARM used for always on iOS services and intel for booting to full OS X. Didn't Dell do something similar where they had an ARM for playing CDs or other small stuff on a laptop without fully booting the OS?

Re:Why?

[jedidiah]

> For the tasks most people want a computer for (or think they want a computer for) an ARM-based solution could work just as well as an x86 based one.

No, not really. Not at all. This isn't apparent with things like the iPad because it's a tightly controlled and heavily curated experience. You don't realize you're running on a throwback from the 90s because you aren't allowed to do anything that might make that obvious.

Thinking you can depend on multiple cores has it's own problems and inherent engineering challenges even if you assume that all Mac software has already been modified to accommodate this (which isn't even true).

Re:Why?

[TellarHK]

Let's see, what do most users do with computers? Browse the web, read and reply to email, shop, manage photos and maybe videos if they've got kids, and maybe do some light office and bookkeeping work.

Okay, tell me how the iPad isn't enough for that.

Yes, it's a controlled and curated experience. But Apple has sold more of those controlled, curated, locked down experiences in just the last 4 years than they have ever sold in Macintosh computers. Don't forget that you are not the market Apple is aiming for. You're the market that WISHES Apple was aiming for it, because if they were, then we'd see some pretty astounding products on the shelf. Instead, we get products priced to move by the tens of millions to the people who don't know RAM from storage space. And they are _selling_.

Re:Why?

[farble1670]

You can get 64 quad-core A9s for less power than a single Intel. 256 cores at over 1GHz will be much more processing power than the Intel solution.

sure, if you have a compute job that perfectly parallelizes across 256 cores ... such a job doesn't exist in end user computing. the average PC struggles to find a way to use 4 cores let alone 256.

Now that people are trained not to "compute"...

[TellarHK]

... It certainly isn't impossible. People already look at iPads and iPhones as "devices" and not what they really are underneath all that glass and aluminum. Just smaller, simpler "computers". I'd say it's a safe bet that 99% of the Slashdot readership at one point had a computer that looks positively ancient compared to last year's iPhone models, but most people simply don't understand the magnitude of what's been accomplished in technology over the last 30 years.

Now that people look at iDevices and their non-Apple kin as devices, it just takes some time to convince them that the idea of a "computer" really isn't what they ever wanted. They've always wanted devices, and with OSX and now Windows drawing more and more from the closed ecosystem models they spawned off for the mobile realm, people will eventually come around.

I give it around two years before Apple comes out with a new line of ARM-based Macbook Airs, though that could change depending on how effectively Intel and AMD (really, just Intel) stave off the situation by getting lower powered x86 options into the marketplace.

Re:Now that people are trained not to "compute"...

[timeOday]

Or as stated by Jeff Bezos (founder and CEO of amazon.com): "People want services, not gadgets."

Frankly I think Richard Stallman looks more and more like a prophet every year. (And I doubt Jesus or Moses' personal hygene was especially good, either).

Dear Apple

[Jailbrekr]

The only reason why I have a Mac Mini is because you are running a modified version of UNIX. This pleases me. But be forewarned: If your future plans include replacing BSD UNIX with your shitass iOS, I am so fucking gone. Your shitty phones are already on my do not buy list, and I have no qualms with dumping your PCs.

Re:Dear Apple

[CRCulver]

The only reason why I have a Mac Mini is because you are running a modified version of UNIX. This pleases me. But be forewarned: If your future plans include replacing BSD UNIX with your shitass iOS...

From the Wikipedia article on iOS: "iOS is derived from OS X, with which it shares the Darwin foundation, and is therefore a Unix operating system." So a change from Mac OS X to iOS would not shake the UNIX-ness of the operating system. What you seem to fear is the system being locked down, but that could be done with Mac OS X as it is, if Apple so wished.

Cryptographic lockout

[tepples]

Linux works fine on ARM.

Not on a device whose bootloader cryptographically prevents you from installing it.

Re:Cryptographic lockout

[Hatta]

That assumes that there are machines with unlocked bootloaders available. That may not always be the case. If Microsoft decides to apply the same terms to Windows on x86 that it is on ARM, that would pretty much destroy the market for general purpose computers. You'll probably be able to get one, but at a higher price, and you won't be able to run Windows on it.

That's the optimistic scenario. The pessimistic scenario is that once the general public doesn't need general purpose computers, they'll be classified as hacking tools and prohibited for anyone who isn't licensed. Sort of the way that lock pick tools are illegal for those without a locksmithing license.

Re:Cryptographic lockout

[Hatta]

It would destroy Microsoft's position on the market for general purpose computers.

Microsoft doesn't care about general purpose computers, they care about windows boxes.

Wow, you must live in some fucked up country.

It varies from state to state. In some states, mere possession of lockpicks is considered evidence of intent to burglarize .

Re:Cryptographic lockout

[ksemlerK]

Lock picks are completely legal to own in WA state without any permits, licences, or prior authorization. Any private citizen may also purchase these tools without any restrictions. What is illegal, is to use them in the commission of a crime; just as it is with any other random tool or device.

Re:Cryptographic lockout

[maynard]

This is right.

It's more than just about creating social and legal controls over a technology that threatens traditional power structures, though personal computing has done that - just look at how social networking has supported political revolts across the world. Governments and their business patrons fear this power shift.

So, how have they responded?

The western national economies have transformed their income streams from production to rent collection, which has been ongoing since the 1970s. This has devalued all forms of manufacturing, where raw materials are converted to useful things through work, thus devaluing those who perform labor in the process. It's not automation that has destroyed manufacturing in the United States. In fact, that claim is ridiculous on its face, since - by definition - automation increases productivity which presumably should lead to long term industry success.

No, instead, free capital flows shifted productive work overseas where for cheap labor - sometimes slave labor - was available. This is called 'globalism'. But we should view the term a misnomer, due to the disparity between how easy it is to transfer capital across national boundaries versus how labor is locked into the nation state by borders and immigration law. It's not 'global free trade', it's arbitrage. This has happened not just in lock-step with deregulating the financial industry - Wall Street - at the expense of labor, but also because of it. For the power shift from government to the financial sector has had the effect of diminishing the political power of citizens - and especially labor - in the process. Because it's pretty damn hard for the poor to exercise real political power. That transformation benefitted both power bases in government and the financial sector.

But how does all this relate to computing lock-down and DRM?

It's the model for how to understand vendor lock-down in computing. For open computing platforms decentralize power by freeing people to use computing in ways never intended by the vendor (or government). This used to be called innovation. Back in the 1970s, every personal computer was open. The Apple II shipped with a manual that included schematics. Bus specifications were open. Computers booted to BASIC, a programming language by default. Now, not everyone wants to program and computing shouldn't be viewed strictly from that mindset. But, consider what happened to the minicomputing market as a result. Digital, for example, went bankrupt trying to maintain their vendor lock-in due to competition from open systems - primarily the IBM-PC and its clones we still use today. Because people like freedom, even when they don't directly use that freedom to tinker and create themselves.

So, I'm arguing that in the same vein that the financial industry gained protected privileges (deregulation) which gave it market advantage over labor, so too are titans of the software and tech industry, IBM, Microsoft, Apple, Oracle, etc have bent law and regulation to their benefit, at the expense of small competitors and even their own customers. Like 'deregulation' for Wall Street, the tech industry has it's own legal maneuver, this time through copyrights, patents, and trademarks, all of which are a form of government regulated monopoly protection.

And all this in the Orwellian name of 'freedom'. In the financial industry, they called it 'free trade'. In the tech industry it's, 'freedom to innovate'. But in both cases the freedom isn't to decentralized down to small business or citizens, it's centralized up toward the largest market players. It's a freedom to engage in monopoly control over markets, whether the labor market, the tech market, or any other market where players are big enough to buy protection from legislators and the court system. Protection, not from other big industry players - by and large - but protection from small competitors who might innovate their way into market dominance, and protection from custome

Re:Cryptographic lockout

[LongearedBat]

Reminds me of this story...

A couple went on vacation to a resort up north. The husband liked to fish, and the wife liked to read. One morning the husband came back from fishing after getting up real early that morning and took a nap.

While he slept, the wife decided to take the boat out. She was not familiar with the lake, so she rowed out and anchored the boat, and started reading her book.

Along comes the Game Warden in his boat, pulls up alongside the woman's boat and asks her what she's doing? She says, "Reading my book."

The Game Warden tells her she is in a restricted fishing area and she explains that she's not fishing. To which he replied, "But you have all this equipment. I will have to take you in and write you up!"

Angry that the warden was being so unreasonable, the lady told the warden, "If you do that, I will charge you with rape."

The warden, shocked by her statement, replied, "But I didn't even touch you."

To which the lady replied, "Yes, but you have all the equipment!"

Banning self-signed software

[tepples]

Then you also get alternative/thin boot of iOS.

That or Apple will follow Microsoft's lead with Windows RT's lack of sideloading and use the transition to ARM ISA as a chance to remove the option to run software that's not signed with an Apple Developer ID. This means Apple would get to charge owners of ARM Macs $99 per year to rent the ability to run Xcode or any other compiler on their own hardware, just as Apple presently does with iOS.

I'll bet Apple is exploring all kinds of stuff

[SirGarlon]

According to Ars Technica, Apple's R&D budget is 3.4 BILLION dollars (3.4x10^9). That's enough money to "explore" all kinds of crazy stuff. Just because they're spending money looking into something, doesn't make it part of their business plan.

Re:Hey Apple,

[Bryansix]

Seriously. Like we need another set of hardware stuck on some unsupported version of OS X.

They Can use Samsung Chips Instead

[retroworks]

Samsung is the biggest investment competitor to Intel in the chip market, right? [ http://tinyurl.com/samsungintel ] What does Apple need Intel for, give the guys at Samsung a call. What could go wrong?

Re:64-way, on 1-die

[h4rr4r]

Even that probably would not be enough to win if floating point performance was needed.

You would also be a huge disadvantage for anything that is difficult or plain impossible to to parralelize.

Re:64-way, on 1-die

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Just like project "Marklar", for those with longer memories...

Remember history. When Apple shifts, it is dramatic and FAST. (64000, PPC, x86).

Re:One Day?

[Dunbal]

Where you see a walled garden, I see a prison.

Re:64-way, on 1-die

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Remember numeric co-processors?

That's now why you have a GPU.

Float away, baby.

Re:64-way, on 1-die

[jedidiah]

> at lower power usage

That's just a nice way of saying that x86 parts will mop the floor with ARM in terms of performance when it's actually time to do some work.

You fixate on power usage because it's the only area where ARM doesn't look laughable and pathetic.

x86 is what you use when an ARM solution can't do the job.

Taking a break from all your worries

[Thud457]

Where you see a walled garden, I see a prison.

Where you see a prison, I see an zombie-proof enclave.

Re:Taking a break from all your worries

[Belial6]

Where you see a zombie-proof enclave, I see a prison that is only 1 bi(y)te away from being overrun.

Re:Taking a break from all your worries

[dkf]

Where you see a prison, I see an zombie-proof enclave.

Since the zombies are only after eating braaaaains, Apple fanbois are naturally not at great risk.

Re:Taking a break from all your worries

[viperidaenz]

Not if there is a rogue prisoner opening gates.

Re:Efficiency Performance

[Type44Q]

Nothing to write home about, either.

All Mac developers writing for multi-core now

[SuperKendall]

OS X applications are still single threaded, like 99% of all applications. You ever tried writing code for multi-core? Thought not.

Between GCD and blocks and various graphics frameworks, any modern Mac (or iOS) developer has been writing for multiple cores for years now. It's just that most of the tricky work is hidden away.

Developers? What OS X developers!?

Well first of all there are the 500k+ iOS developers, who run on Macs. And then there are hordes of Ruby/UNIX/Java developers, who often use Macs to develop on.

Perhaps you just meant "what developers are writing apps for OS X". I guess someone is, since there are thousands of apps on the OS X App Store now...

Re:All Mac developers writing for multi-core now

[SuperKendall]

The vast majority of Ruby, Unix and Java developers work on non-Apple hardware

All I can say is, you go to no technical conferences and you have obviously never met a Ruby developer.

Ruby Mac use is so pervasive in fact, that the Ruby guys built extensions to program mac (and iOS) apps in Ruby...

Unix developers in particular have almost completely abandoned Mac because Apple have made it too difficult to get Linux running on there.

On the other hand most UNIX users have moved to the Mac because they do not NEED to get Linux running on it. You already have a solid UNIX base, it's not like Cygwin or some other faux substitute.

Good luck with those delusions, which match not at all with easily observable fact or laptop sales figures (which is what most developers use these days, not that you would no that either).

Re:64-way, on 1-die

[Belial6]

Agreed. That leaves the question... Is the market for software/computers that need x86 big enough that it makes sense for Apple to worry about it?

Re:Hey Apple,

[OrangeTide]

Sounds like a win-win for Apple. They don't have to pay for Intel, and all their users are forced to upgrade to new hardware. And all the OSX software vendors get to sell new versions of their software for the new platform.

Re:64-way, on 1-die

[NatasRevol]

Yes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CryEngine#CryENGINE_3_2

Re:Efficiency Performance

[WilliamGeorge]

It is a generation old now, and has been for many months. Also, the parent said 'no real beefy GPU' - GPU, not CPU. Both are true, though, and the fact the Mac Pro hasn't been updated in a long time now underscores Apple's apparent move away from performance computing.

Re:Efficiency Performance

[Culture20]

They'll migrate back to Windows just like they did when Apple ruined Final Cut Pro. The mass exodus to Adobe Premiere running on Windows left FCP as pretty much a non-player at this point for serious video editing.

Word. I've seen them migrate with other Adobe products too, just because they have to use windows for one purpose, so they start using it for others.

Thankfully the Xserve debacle caused some higher ups to realize that Linux on cheaper servers is a better option anyway.

Re:64-way, on 1-die

[Dekker3D]

Well, Macs have always been associated with graphical artists. I personally love working on my Cintiq on Windows/Linux and wouldn't touch a Mac with a 10-foot pole (Something big needs to happen before I give any money to something so anti-freedom as Apple), but... yeah. Most people using advanced drawing programs or 3D rendering/sculpting software will need a lot of CPU and GPU power. Some apps lean on one more than the other, but I don't think any 3D artist these days will look at his rendertimes and say "welp, that'll forever be fast enough for me!"

Programmers are traditionally more Unix/Linux folks, and a lot of programmers use compilers that write bytecode rather than actual executables, so I don't think they will be of much concern to Apple.. but this does mean that multi-OS support will fall behind again. And given that Windows (about 80%?) and Linux (maybe another 5%?) serve a huge share of the desktop users, that probably means that the Mac will be left behind. Beside that, a large share of FOSS software seems to be mostly developed on Linux anyway, so..

I don't think this'll affect non-Mac users much. It may hurt Apple's bottom line a bit, but the forced upgrades will compensate and probably cause a bit of a jump in profits even. It'll just further segregation between Mac and non-Mac.

Codename: Alcatraz

[Taco Cowboy]

And no dual boot, and they can continue with the plan to make OSX into desktop iOS, complete with walled garden.

With such impressive "features" they might as well name it Alcatraz.

100-seat sideloading license for $3000

[tepples]

that's trivially disprovable if you actually try using one for the minute or so that it takes to enable sideloading

I was under the impression that sideloading using a developer certificate would disable itself after a month, and Microsoft had ways to detect "fraudulent use of a developer license" as a sideloading method. What other method of sideloading were you talking about? The one that involves buying a 100-seat sideloading license for $3000?