[AppleInsider] Apple may abandon Intel for its Macs starting with post-Broadwell

[Mondozei]

The website quotes well-regarded Apple analyst Ming-Chi Kuo who has a very good track record.

The logic of the article is straight-forward. Apple's A-series of SoCs are nearing a stage where they are indeed reaching desktop-class.

Apple said this with A7 - because it had 64-bit support - but in reality we all know that it still had some way to go. However, we're now nearing a stage when Apple can say this without blushing or hyperbole.

Anyway, what do you think of it? I think it sounds very plausible to me. Apple isn't tied into Intel's mess-ups, it can specifically optimise hardware and software like it does on its phones & tablets. It could push battery life even further and so on.

Apple's share of the notebook market is growing fast. This is sure to hurt Intel, even if it's just "choose to buy A-series processor" in the beginning, it could well lead to an all-out abandonment, and why wouldn't it? Apple have proven they are really good at chip design.

 

[SPBHM]

the A8x probably looks quite good comparing it to to their 2008-2009 laptops?

 

[PPB]

I say good riddance, it would restore the differentiation apple had on the pc space when they sported ibm cpus. To buy a mac that has idebtical hardware to what you can get in a pc its kinf of absurd, speciallu for the Premium they ask for their products

 

[tential]

Nope don't see it.
I see it as wishful thinking but it won't happen now.
We saw it with Windows 8 ARM edition ( or whatever), it's hard to split your userbase between two different processor types.
Not to mention I doubt their processors will compete with Skylake.

I'm sure other users will comment even more, but the one thing Apple does have going for them is an extremely loyal fanbase that is willing to do whatever they're told.

 

[Mondozei]

By the way, I don't think Apple will completely abandon Intel for the simple reason that there is no substitute for an i7 and won't be for a long time.
The people who buy a $2000+ Macbook are often people who need video encoding and similar stuff. And I don't see Apple matching Intel there. But I also think those people are in the minority for all the people who buy Macbooks.

A lot of folks who buy expensive Macbooks don't really need 8 threads and don't use them.
Furthermore, most Macbook sales are the mainstream/popular versions where Intel can be displaced. 'Regular' Macs are a different story, but they are also much more low-volume.

That being said, it's very possible Intel may lose the vast majority of Macbook sales within just a few years. And Intel's still extremely reliant on its PC & server business. The mobile business hasn't been spectacular, to put it mildly.

 

[Mondozei]

the A8x probably looks quite good comparing it to to their 2008-2009 laptops?

Interesting! Benchmarks?

 

[ShintaiDK]

Love the article. Classic selfenforcing clickbait article. Could, maybe, possible.

But even the author doesnt really seem to want to put the full faith behind it.

Kuo suggests that Apple's in-house chips will reach a level of performance somewhere between Intel's Atom and Core i3 lines within the next 1-2 years

The A8 didnt exactly boost the confidence in that tho.

And even better, they assume 10nm finfets in 2016.

 

[witeken]

Unlikely. Apple already has quite some influence on Intel. Crystalwell and IGP anyone? I doubt Apple will get access to Intel's fabs, and if you don't have those, you can't compete. Apple builds products, not individual components. Intel is still doing some catch-up with regards to SoC development, but Core will leverage from those investments (e.g. Broadwell-U/Y), so Intel will be on par when Apple has an SoC that doesn't sacrifice performance to go into a laptop, but Intel's process and architecture lead will push it ahead of Apple.

 

[tential]

By the way, I don't think Apple will completely abandon Intel for the simple reason that there is no substitute for an i7 and won't be for a long time.
The people who buy a $2000+ Macbook are often people who need video encoding and similar stuff. And I don't see Apple matching Intel there. But I also think those people are in the minority for all the people who buy Macbooks.

A lot of folks who buy expensive Macbooks don't really need 8 threads and don't use them.
Furthermore, most Macbook sales are the mainstream/popular versions where Intel can be displaced. 'Regular' Macs are a different story, but they are also much more low-volume.

That being said, it's very possible Intel may lose the vast majority of Macbook sales within just a few years. And Intel's still extremely reliant on its PC & server business. The mobile business hasn't been spectacular, to put it mildly.

This is the exact thing Apple will NOT do. They won't split their userbase. I've seen a lot of people purchase $2000+ macbooks for web browsing/facebook. They tell their friend about a program, then their friend can't use it because they have the Apple SoC version.

Windows may be insane enough to try and fail at this. Apple? No.

Unlikely. Apple already has quite some influence on Intel. Crystalwell and IGP anyone? I doubt Apple will get access to Intel's fabs, and if you don't have those, you can't compete. Apple builds products, not individual components. Intel is still doing some catch-up with regards to SoC development, but Core will leverage from those investments (e.g. Broadwell-U/Y), so Intel will be on par when Apple has an SoC that doesn't sacrifice performance to go into a laptop, but Intel's process and architecture lead will push it ahead of Apple.

Apple's influence on Intel means they can get what they want out of Intel. It seems to be quite an influential push as that IGP is getting better and better. Why would they jump ship now when they are getting what they want? I could see if 10 years from now when ARM is able to replace x86 on all levels and Apple can do it, but I don't think Apple would want that this soon.

The risk of Windows PCs having a faster Intel Processor with better batterylife is Apple made a mistake, anywhere, would not be worth it. And with Intel's mass experience in doing what it does (process/architecture lead) it's better for Apple to work with them, and produce a better all around product than every other PC producer, than to take such a crazy risk, with very little return.

 

[xthetenth]

There's a pretty good reason the switch to intel processors was an all in thing and it was accompanied by a major change in the OS.

Running two architectures for a range of PCs is more than a bit insane.

 

[Essence_of_War]

Unlikely. Apple already has quite some influence on Intel. Crystalwell and IGP anyone? I doubt Apple will get access to Intel's fabs, and if you don't have those, you can't compete. Apple builds products, not individual components.

Yeah, if you have as fruitful and influential relationship with a chip design/fab like Intel as Apple does, why bother?

Not to say that OSX isn't leading a double life in the lab. I would be shocked if there wasn't an R&D team at Apple that wasn't responsible for testing OSX on ARM. Heck, there might even be someone testing OSX on POWER just to be sure . It's prudent to keep your options open even if there isn't an immediate reason to act on them.

 

[Pneumothorax]

I say good riddance, it would restore the differentiation apple had on the pc space when they sported ibm cpus. To buy a mac that has idebtical hardware to what you can get in a pc its kinf of absurd, speciallu for the Premium they ask for their products

Only now with the release of Dell's latest XPS 13 is a PC manufacturer matching/exceeding Apple with screen/keyboard/trackpad quality and battery life in one lightweight package. Guess what, it's pretty close to the price of a Macbook pro retina lol.

IF Apple goes for A series for their MacBooks, I'm going back to Wintel... The G4 MacBooks were pretty sh!tty compared to their core2duo counterparts in the Wintel world.

 

[ShintaiDK]

I think everyone that looked on the epic Windows RT disaster have learned the lesson. Including Apple.

 

[BigDaveX]

I could maybe see them adding some new products below their current iMac and Mac Minis that run either iOS or a stripped-down ARM version of OS X. A ChromeBox competitor, perhaps.

But going totally ARM? I don't see that happening, if for no other reason than an ARM SoC is going to struggle with the insane 5K screen resolution of their highest-end iMac.

 

[tential]

Just want to clarify my post in a new post:

It's a huge risk, with little return, Apple isn't doing it. End of story.

 

[witeken]

I think it's the other way around: Apple should invest more in x86 iOS. They should test Broadwell-Y for iPad Pro and regular iPad and iPad Mini, they should encourage Intel to develop a 10nm Core Phone, etc..

 

[386user]

i would never purchase another apple product again likely

im not paying that premium for low tier performance

 

[SPBHM]

Interesting! Benchmarks?

benchmarks comparing x86 to ARM, OSX to iOS are not easy to find I think,
but based on geekbench, current IPAD can be much faster than mid 2009 macbook pro
http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/compare/1705150?baseline=1703664

obviously Haswell macbooks are much faster, but, Apple is certainly "almost there", so it would be natural for them to replace Intel with their own CPUs in a few years.

I think everyone that looked on the epic Windows RT disaster have learned the lesson. Including Apple.

well, they are not going to use tegra 3, and maybe not lock everything to their App store like as if it was iOS!?

 

[sm625]

Given intel's insane margins, it would be foolish for apple not to push for this. There is no rational reason to be pushing 64 bit in mobile, except if you aim to integrate mobile and desktop sometime in the near future. I mean, sheesh, apple just recently started using more than 1GB of RAM. At the rate they are going it will be 6 more years before their devices even reach the limit of 32 bit computing. And even then, you can run all sorts of various tricks to squeeze a few more years out of 32 bit. Even when iphones get to 4GB there wont be any one app that needs anywhere near that much memory.

 

[Atreidin]

It's always easier to pretend your product is more advanced when it's harder to directly compare it to competition (previous Macs vs PCs of the day, as well as previous generations of consoles vs. PCs of the appropriate times).

 

[tential]

If Apple wants to push it's ARM design into the Macbook world we're going to a see a product like this:
Ipad Air Pro
12 inch tablet
Retina Display
ARM Processor (Maybe even 2 of them working together if possible or a higher clocked/specced one)
Dock (Standard sold won't be a separate attachment) this would increase battery life from it's normal battery life to double, or even triple what it normally is, and would also charge the original device so it could be taken out again and used on the go.
iPen(Or Air Pen similar to the samsung stylus)

This will merge the productivity of a Macbook into the Ipad lineup while still utilizing the ARM processor. Apple will gauge the success of this and see if it's viable moving ARM into the macbook lineup.

When they want to move ARM into the macbook lineup they'll run advertisements for the Macbook/Macbook Pro clearly differentiating the two.

Macbook will be all you love about Macs, with much higher battery life (and some other marketing stuff) using the A87 and the standard App Store.

Macbook Pro will be redesigned to really differentiate itself from Macbook and will continue to use Intel Processors.
etc.

That's how I'd see it going down. A convertible would be the first step in bridging and seeing if people are interested in using the ARM processor for "productivity" purposes.

Edit: Apple would "Obviously" work with software developers to ensure that there are applications ready for an ARM productivity dockable tablet release.

The issue here is kind of what Witeken touches on in that if apple was to go any route, it's easier to just use Intel to do all of this and not have to vastly change anything than it is to bring ARM into the mix.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Given intel's insane margins, it would be foolish for apple not to push for this.

The problem for Apple is the volume. The R&D cost per chip is only getting higher fast. So Apples own chips is already quite expensive.

 

[scannall]

Sorry, but I just don't see it. There needs to be a compelling reason for them to change architectures, and there just isn't one. They left IBM, and the PowerPC CPU's because IBM failed completely to deliver what was promised, and what Apple needed. While Intel does suffer some delivery issues, they are pretty minor compared to what came before it.

While Apple may be better than anyone else at changing architectures, it isn't something done lightly or on a whim.

 

[xthetenth]

Given intel's insane margins, it would be foolish for apple not to push for this. There is no rational reason to be pushing 64 bit in mobile, except if you aim to integrate mobile and desktop sometime in the near future. I mean, sheesh, apple just recently started using more than 1GB of RAM. At the rate they are going it will be 6 more years before their devices even reach the limit of 32 bit computing. And even then, you can run all sorts of various tricks to squeeze a few more years out of 32 bit. Even when iphones get to 4GB there wont be any one app that needs anywhere near that much memory.

Pretty sure I've seen mobile chips get a nice performance boost from the extra registers. Also, you don't want to switch over to 64 bit when you need it, you want that done so nearly all your apps are already 64 bit.

 

[witeken]

Given intel's insane margins, it would be foolish for apple not to push for this. There is no rational reason to be pushing 64 bit in mobile, except if you aim to integrate mobile and desktop sometime in the near future. I mean, sheesh, apple just recently started using more than 1GB of RAM. At the rate they are going it will be 6 more years before their devices even reach the limit of 32 bit computing. And even then, you can run all sorts of various tricks to squeeze a few more years out of 32 bit. Even when iphones get to 4GB there wont be any one app that needs anywhere near that much memory.

Isn't this a big contradiction? You say that Appel avoids Intel's "insane margins" (BTW, you can find Bay Trail in sub-$100 tablets and Core in sub-$250 Chromebooks, so the only company that has insane margins is Apple if they don't want to use a CPU that other companies are happy to use in devices that cost less than half the price of an iPad or iPhone), but then they only put 1GB of measly RAM and an even more meager 16GB of NAND in the most expensive phone on earth.

Intel is justified in heaving healthy margins: they have to do the fundamental research and development; Apple just has to assemble and sell to their already way-too-loyal customers (if I can exaggerate slightly).