Apple is an existential threat to the PC

Instead of moving to ARM, why don't just Apple use AMD processors (or make a semi-custom solution like MS and Sony)?

 

Complete vertical integration from hardware to software. The unit price per processor / SOC will go down leading to higher margins. Just to name something quick.

 

Apple still has to pay royalties to ARM. I think going with AMD would lead to much less SW headaches as well.

 

You might not know this but Arm is a spinoff from Acorn and Apple working together on the Newton processor in 1990. Apple has the broadest possible ARM license and is allowed to extend the ISA in any way they see fit.

 

Companies that have an architecture license still have to pay per chip royalties. Anyway I guess that's still less expensive than buying from AMD and even if that was not the case, as @Pressure said, there are multiple other benefits.

 

To be fair I think the companies involved tried to change in the past but without sucess.
Intel tried the i860 (RISC design) but let the market decide: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_i860
I think they didnt push the market enough.
The problem was the lack of ecosystem (clients, developers, S.O. and applications)

Also linux is evolving but need to be more user friendly.
It use less resources like memory than Windows:


Well, lets the market decide...

 

Ming-Chi Kuo claims that the first two ARM Macs will be a 13.3" MacBook Pro and a 24" iMac (sources: MacRumors and 9to5Mac).

The first Intel Macs in early 2006 were the 15" MacBook Pro and 17" and 20" iMacs, so the ARM transition would resemble the Intel transition in this way. Judging by the display sizes, the first ARM Macs may be positioned at a slightly lower end in Apple's lineup relative to the first Intel Macs.

• The current 13" MacBook Pro is in between the 2006 13" MacBook and 15" MacBook Pro.
• The rumored 24" iMac would likely replace the current 21.5" iMac and is the equivalent of the 2006 17" iMac. That said, the iMac currently uses desktop CPUs instead of laptop CPUs in the early Intel days, so the comparison is not so simple.

The iMac Pro and 16" MacBook Pro are also rumored to get (Intel) updates late this year according to Ming-Chi Kuo and Mark Gurman respectively.

12 to 18 months from Q1 2021 would be Q1–Q3 2022. Major Mac Pro updates have been announced at WWDCs since the first generation Power Mac G5, and the iMac Pro was announced at WWDC 2017. Optimistically, we could see an ARM iMac Pro and/or ARM Mac Pro announced at WWDC 2021, with WWDC 2022 and a release shortly afterward being the other possibility.

I hope that the "all-new" MacBook is a super thin and light (~1.5 pounds) successor to the 12" MacBook which was discontinued a year ago.

The performance claims are quite vague, but it's useful in that it rules out the possibility of Apple starting out with very low performance ARM Macs. In my opinion,

• 50%–100% more ST CPU performance over Intel is nothing short of great. In this case Apple should move the Mac Pro to ARM as quickly as possible.
• 50%–100% more MT CPU performance over Intel is somewhat disappointing. Gurman, Wu, and King claim that the first Mac chip has 8 big cores and 4 little cores. The current 13" MBP and 21.5" iMac have 4 cores and 4 to 6 cores respectively, and I expect a Comet Lake 23" iMac to improve on thread count at least (over the existing iMac). So if this chip ends up in the 13" MBP and 24" iMac, the performance numbers could mostly be explained by the core count increase alone.
• 50%–100% more GPU or overall performance over Intel is more or less what I would expect given the rumored high core count of the Mac chips.

 

Then we need more effective rules for hardware integration/interoperability.
Maybe something at the UEFI level making it smarter, administrative and operative.

Brainstorm:
Maybe like a light and flexible embedded VM capable to serve any OS !
Unified Extensible Firmware Interface and Virtual Machine UEFIVM.
Then chose your OS flavor!
Maybe the PC of the future will be more like a mainframe.

 

Why affix that spread to a specific subarea of performance? Wouldn’t an interpretation like "roughly 50%ST and up to 100%MT" be a reasonable alternative given the rumoured configuration? Anyway, the benchmark wars will commence once product is out. For now, I think it makes sense to wait five hours and see if the horses mouth has something to say on the topic.

 

This certification could be partially done at the UEFI level by a independent organization under UEFI Forum rule.

 

OK!

 

Apple Silicon, iOS apps and iPadOS will run natively.

 

Well damn.
New SoCs, first consumer hardware this year, full transition over the next two years.
Yihaa! The game is on.

 

Adobe apps already up and running.

 

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/202...ap-for-moving-the-first-macs-away-from-intel/

https://live.arstechnica.com/wwdc-2020/

 

My Macbook Pro is six years old and I'm waiting for a new one. This year's Macbook Pro 13 is actually quite tempting but for some reason I didn't get it.
Now I think I'll get the new ARM version when they released (if there is a 13" Macbook Pro version).
I believe it'll make developing iOS and iPadOS apps a much more smooth workflow.