Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
ARM based MacBook Pro discussion [merged]
- Thread starter Omega Mac
- Start date
-
- Tags
- arm intel macbook pro macos sierra
- Sort by reaction score
Nope. iOS ecosystem offers no real professional grade apps. Even Adobe Photoshop and MS Office for iOS are still bastardized and dumbed down "mobile" versions. They are fine as supplemental tools, but they are not suitable as full replacements of desktop versions.
Apple's introduction of "ARM laptops" will be an extension of iPadOS into new form factors. I predict something like a dual-screen clamshell with lower part being able to act as soft keyboard (something akin to Surface Duo).
It will NOT be a wholesale porting of classic MacOS to ARM or any kind of ARM MacBook running desktop MacOS apps.
Apple's introduction of "ARM laptops" will be an extension of iPadOS into new form factors. I predict something like a dual-screen clamshell with lower part being able to act as soft keyboard (something akin to Surface Duo).
It will NOT be a wholesale porting of classic MacOS to ARM or any kind of ARM MacBook running desktop MacOS apps.
Last edited:
No, but I think the Surface Laptop could be a sign that a Mac transition to ARM will be slower than some are expecting.
There are too many compromises with arm now. They are unable to run 64 bit apps properly. Apple won't put that chip in to Mac anytime son.
There‘s already an ARM chip there (T2). That doesn’t make it an ARM based Macbook, but I think they’re pretty heavily invested already. Maybe instead of a minority of tasks on ARM and a majority on Intel, they transition to a majority on ARM and a minority on Intel, leveraging the availability of thermally efficiency, if that actually is the case in real life (7nm vs 14nm, 5nm vs 10nm etc), and lower powered Intel processors.
Not sure what you mean about them not being able to run 64 bit apps.
Emulation? Couldn’t care less. All the Intel-locked multi-thousand dollar CAD apps run on corporate servers or AWS, not on my laptop. All my pro full stack development tools either run on macOS or Linux, and are already ported to ARM Linux, or can be by Apple (Xcode, etc.). Adobe tools, Mathematica, Tensorflow, Docker, Kubernetes, etc., all run on ARM systems already.
If Apple dropped some new heat-sinked/turbo-boosted A chip in my MacBook Pro tomorrow, with the usual macOS utilities in arm64, the only problem I might notice might be better battery life.
If Apple dropped some new heat-sinked/turbo-boosted A chip in my MacBook Pro tomorrow, with the usual macOS utilities in arm64, the only problem I might notice might be better battery life.
What about Logic,Reason ,komplete by Native instruments,Omnisphere to name a few,when those will land on Arm then i suppose we could see the shift but not until then
Article released by Notebook check looks to set the record straight on recent rumours of A14 beating Intels 6 Core CPU in the 15” MBP. Notebook Check A14 Bionic vs Intel 6 Core
Given the time Apple took to transition from 32 to 64 bit I don't think it's likely they're switching to ARM soon. It's not very productive to be worrying about it now too.
You naysayers seem to have forgotten that this information came from Intel, not forum nerds, so there is some credibility.
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/apple-mac-arm-cpus-2020-intel,38668.html
Also, porting An app from Intel to Arm should be trivial in most cases(I do some development). This does require updated software API’s however, and as Apple seems to be having issues on this front, 2020 may be too early...
Finally, given the differences iin thermal requirements, Apple might create custom silicon for their Mac lineup, without the thermal limitations of the A series chips...
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/apple-mac-arm-cpus-2020-intel,38668.html
Also, porting An app from Intel to Arm should be trivial in most cases(I do some development). This does require updated software API’s however, and as Apple seems to be having issues on this front, 2020 may be too early...
Finally, given the differences iin thermal requirements, Apple might create custom silicon for their Mac lineup, without the thermal limitations of the A series chips...
Last edited:
You meant, this rumour has been beaten up by a series of article 'headlines', right?
Axios reports it as:
Which TomsHardware then re-reports as:
Which you're then taking as gospel.
Will there be Macs released in 2020 with an ARM processor in them? Yes, because they've been releasing Macs with an ARM processor in them since 2016, in the form of the T1 and T2.
Will there be Macs released in 2020 that use an ARM processor as the primary, sole processor (with no Intel processor)? Extremely unlikely.
Actually, look at my post again, I said ”credible”, did you not read my post? Because you quoted it. Or do you really think the word credible means “Gospel” ??? Maybe read my post again where I said 2020 may be too early..... it seems like you didn’t read my post before you replied.
or maybe look at this:https://9to5mac.com/2018/10/17/apple-custom-chips-macs-apple-car/
Ming-ChI Kuo, well respected and Accurate forecaster also confirmed the move.
I mean do you really expect us to believe you, a random guy on a forum, over industry experts with credible sources who have a pretty accurate track records? Where’s your evidence, where’s your proof?
Last edited:
This thread should be in the Macbook forum instead. If there's a full ARM Mac, it won't be a Pro to start with.
That was one major concern with Apple with their PPC to Intel transition, and so they included an emulation so that legacy apps would still run (albeit poorly) while giving the developer the opporunity to recode for the new platform.
I suspect the move to running iOS apps within macOS is the firs step to the migration to ARM.
But there aren't any pro apps for serious pros like Final Cut Pro, Davinci Resolve, Blender, CAD, Capture One Pro, and more. This is the biggest concern I have and if they can't solve this, then it will be meaningless for pro users.
you’re asking me to prove something won’t happen? You want evidence to prove a non-event? Ok sure let me whip out my time machine and go get you some future non-evidence.
you are apparently supportive of the claim that Apple will switch to arm processors. The burden of evidence is yours mate: if you think it’ll happen where’s your proof? A bunch of articles repeating each other over some unofficial conjecture is hardly proof.
This thread is riddled with linked articles about Apples eventual switch to ARM for the macs, it’s not some random posters opinion, it’s based on information coming from industry reporters, Intel, and a prominent analyst with a pretty accurate track record. Throw in Apple’s internal effort to merge API‘s and the Mac iOS code base under Marzipan, and it looks credible.
Now everybody's entitled to an opinion, but I take issue when people exaggerate and mischaracterize my statements in their response and then proceed to argue against something I never stated, it’s trolling behavior, and I’m going to call it out...
Now everybody's entitled to an opinion, but I take issue when people exaggerate and mischaracterize my statements in their response and then proceed to argue against something I never stated, it’s trolling behavior, and I’m going to call it out...
Many of which reference each other as "evidence". To give you an example of how this is misleading, if there is 1 article claiming <something>, and then 4 other articles that re-publish the same information citing the first as their source, that isn't "five articles". It's one.
Yet again, you're conflating Intel, and people who work there. I previously worked for the Australian Federal Government. If at the time, I'd told reporters (who knew I worked for the government) "Australia will make cheese illegal in 4 years time", no one in their right mind would interpret that as "evidence from the Australian Government".
"Industry Reporters" have also told us the following:
- Apple will release Plasma TVs
- Apple will buy Universal Music
- Apple, AWS, etc etc were "hacked" via compromised SuperMicro boards
- Apple or Disney will buy the other
How many of those turned out to be true?
I think you're drastically misunderstanding what Catalyst does, and how significant it would be for an x86 to ARM conversion for macOS.
Well thank you for that allowance at least
.... You think that when I mentioned you treating those articles as "gospel" that was mischaracterising your view... but you then make claims like:
Do you know what "eventual" means? Did you perhaps mean "possible", or "potential"? Because "eventual" does not mean "something that may or may not happen".
.... This is literally what you said, when you called me a "troll":
A dissenting opinion is not a troll. If you seriously believe that, I'm sorry but you're wrong. This isn't about opinions or interpretations, you're just wrong.
as a developer, I am aware of the limitations of catalyst, Apple usually needs 2-3 iterations before it’s solid, so I expect by WWDC 2020 it should be a lot further along. Long term it’s Swiftui anyway.
The linked articles were ABOUT Apples eventual switch to ARM for Macs, that’s what many of the titles say, For example: https://www.tomshardware.com/news/apple-mac-arm-cpus-2020-intel,38668.html
Its not a claim I made, it’s a claim the article made. Look at my sentence again...
That is what the ABOUT is for in the sentence. I’ve only ever claimed the material looked credible...
and I also just stated “about Apples eventual switch to ARM for the macs” , just now, long after you misstated me, so it’s irrelivent anyway...
I mean you’ve done the same thing in your post above, taken sentences out of context and claimed I said something I didn’t....
i don’t know maybe it’s a reading comprehension issue. I had assumed English was your first language but maybe not the case? Not trying to be sarcastic here...
can’t speak to the other rumors as I’ve never heard them...
The linked articles were ABOUT Apples eventual switch to ARM for Macs, that’s what many of the titles say, For example: https://www.tomshardware.com/news/apple-mac-arm-cpus-2020-intel,38668.html
Its not a claim I made, it’s a claim the article made. Look at my sentence again...
That is what the ABOUT is for in the sentence. I’ve only ever claimed the material looked credible...
and I also just stated “about Apples eventual switch to ARM for the macs” , just now, long after you misstated me, so it’s irrelivent anyway...
I mean you’ve done the same thing in your post above, taken sentences out of context and claimed I said something I didn’t....
i don’t know maybe it’s a reading comprehension issue. I had assumed English was your first language but maybe not the case? Not trying to be sarcastic here...
can’t speak to the other rumors as I’ve never heard them...
Last edited:
And yet you referred to it as Marzipan, and don't seem to understand that Catalyst is about making application level APIs iPadOS apps use, available on macOS, to facilitate easier porting of those apps.
Apple has been doing ARM/X86 compilation of iOS apps since the very first iOS SDK was available for Xcode - from the perspective of compiling existing macOS apps to ARM compatible binaries, I don't see how Catalyst has any baring, at all. If anything, it proves that there's no inherent "need" to use the same processor architecture to run iPad/Mac versions of the same app - the build toolchain already handles all the processor specific stuff anyway (i.e. running iOS/iPadOS apps in the X86 simulator, or building ARM binaries on the Mac and deploying to an iOS/iPadOS device).
Let me rephrase this for you again. That article, is "republishing" a mish-mash of other articles: one from Axios, and one from Bloomberg. They don't even link to the Axios article, but by date it's likely this one: https://www.axios.com/apple-macbook-arm-chips-ea93c38a-d40a-4873-8de9-7727999c588c.html, which has one single line of "unique" input, and then reverts to rehashing other articles.
Their one 'unique' input is this single line:
I mean, developers or "officials" can be anyone when theres no name attached to it, and there are clearly people who believe it will happen. But that's literally it - they have some opinions, and post them as a "source" - as they're not the first to break this "story" its entirely possible, and I'd suggest likely that those people they're using as sources, are themselves influenced by existing "articles" about this same topic. Once enough people talk about the same thing, others start to believe it, regardless of how true it is.
The other Article/theory Axios referenced is from Bloomberg, who, like you, supposes some kind of "Mac/iPhone/iPad" "single app" benefit to Arm CPUs - Catalyst, and the apps that have been released using it, are evidence that CPU architecture is not a "blocker" in this space: the blocker is in making an App designed for an iPad screen/interactions/window model work on a Mac. No amount of CPU similarity will make Apps magically have logical menubar entries or resize behaviour or whatever other inconsistencies people are seeing in Catalyst apps.
"About" is not the word I was commenting on.
It's not irrelevant at all. I suggested that you are treating the collection of republished articles about this as fact, or "gospel", purely as my interpretation of your comments on the matter. You've then argued that I'm mischaracterising your views, and in the process, you've described this as-yet-completely-unconfirmed potential change as "eventual". So as I said, either you do believe it is eventual or you just keep mis-using that word. Arguing that you didn't say it until after, is what's irrelevant. I presented my interpretation of how you'd reacted to those articles, and your followup has just confirmed what I first guessed about your views.
Where?
Well I agree I certainly have trouble comprehending what you've written, because you use words that apparently you don't know the meaning of, which leads you to get upset when someone makes a comment on what you've said.
I notice you didn't clarify anything about calling me a troll. Was that deliberate, because you got it wrong, or because you had just wanted to insult me, or do you just not understand why a difference of opinion is different to trolling?
Your misrepresentations and exaggerations of my posts and my opinion have only convinced me that your just here to argue, nothing else. And longer posts do not make you look right, only desperate.
calling you a troll really isn’t necessary, your posts provide pretty compelling evidence....
calling you a troll really isn’t necessary, your posts provide pretty compelling evidence....
Last edited:
And yet again, where?
I'm here to express an opinion. If you read older posts in the thread you'll see I commented on how I thought any kind of "ARM in a Mac" was likely to eventuate.
I'm interested in actual evidence of this supposed change, or discussions about actual benefits it would bring/compromises or issues it would cause.
"Discussion" about the same rehashed articles that all largely reference each other without any actual evidence or even believable arguments is pointless and IMO shows a lack of critical thinking.
"Developers expect <blah>". Ok, why? Does no one else find it weird that the only benefit cited in any of these articles - easier iOS/macOS app builds - is already possible, and has essentially been done in reverse (iOS apps running on x86) for over a decade, with essentially zero rumours of "iPhones will run x86 processors" coming from it?
Every article I've seen about it, rehashes and re-phrases the same old thing, over and over "<Person> expects Apple to switch to Arm processors in Macs by <Date>, because iOS". Not one of them has gone into the depth of discussion or thought that this thread did earlier - compatibility with existing software, the cluster-**** that is Windows on ARM without native binaries, not to mention issues like all the things taken for granted in a modern Intel x86 processor that Apple's existing Arm chips have none of, or very limited support for: PCIe lanes, Ethernet, USB, Thunderbolt, etc.
So, you know what. If you want to keep posting the same link, to the same article that references two other articles, one of which then references a third, unnamed article and one of which is a Bloomberg article which cites anonymous sources and, of course, previous Bloomberg reporting about the same thing as its "evidence", you keep doing that.
But don't for a moment try to suggest that someone who dares to question the credibility of Chinese whispers style reporting is "trolling" because they don't agree with what you believe.
As I've said multiple times: the status quo is what it is, asking for "proof" of no change is just ridiculous. But if you believe there's a change coming, surely there's some evidence about it, not to mention some justification for said change. So far, besides "someone anonymous said they think this will happen" repeated and republished ad nauseam I've seen very little of the former, and pretty much zero of the latter.
How's that for ****ing trolling?