Silly is quoting part of the answer.Really? What do you base this silly claim on?
Nobody wants to run an ARM-based linux distribution. For example, people might want to actually run the x86_64 Redhat 7 distro. It's a portability argument. We already know that there are special linux builds for ARM.
People will run on whatever works. For instance, back when apple was on powerpc, the top distros all had ppc supported as a primary architecture. The software issue is not significant, because all the open-source software can and has been recompiled over many architectures. And, of course, java software, will work fine on any platform. Look at the Debian software ports for arm for instance, also chrome/chromium works fine on arm too, see raspberry pi.
Unfortunately major distros have not commited to this change yet.
When major linux distributions plus third party repositories officially support ARM (not as a second class citizen) and of course Microsoft Windows, then Macs going ARM is a non-issue.
Until then, many professionals will avoid the ARM Macs like the plague.
ARM is already a primary architecture for distros like Fedora. Ubuntu also supports it. As mass-market arm hardware becomes more available, people will have more of an incentive to develop arm distros. Same thing happened with PPC, when ppc was in the mass-market, you had every major distro suppting it, after it fell out of the mass-market, support was dropped.
I still think it's an incredibly valid point. Windows doesn't have a real x86 port. People wanna run it. My father for example has a Mac but wouldn't dare use it if he couldn't even run his basic Windows apps. A fairly artsy college I go to has tons of students in the exact same boat. It does matter.
Apple could totally switch the Macbook Air to ARM, those things are glorified netbooks anyway.
I see Macbook Pro staying Intel for a while longer, if not indefinitely.
Apple simply does not sell commodity hardware to 'run windows and OS X', Apple sells an ecosystem, plenty of people were on the apple ecosystem even without x86 support, historically. Also, it becomes a question of margins from apple's perspective. Apple doesn't compete on volume, they compete on margins, if it is found that they can make more per unit, by developing their own in-house systems, vs. giving a cut to intel, and in a way that it is 'good enough' for typical users (see ios devices), it is an option for them.
Apple simply does not sell commodity hardware to 'run windows and OS X', Apple sells an ecosystem, plenty of people were on the apple ecosystem even without x86 support, historically. Also, it becomes a question of margins from apple's perspective. Apple doesn't compete on volume, they compete on margins, if it is found that they can make more per unit, by developing their own in-house systems, vs. giving a cut to intel, and in a way that it is 'good enough' for typical users (see ios devices), it is an option for them.
I'm not saying they're making it for both. Simply saying they'd lose a significant amount of customers. No need to draw into my statement more than was meant.
This is historically true, but back then people did not run Virtual Machines.
Today, Mac users automatically assume that they can run a Windows VM.
I'm not sure that higher margins will outweigh the decrease in sales.
Well, that is something for Apple to determine. Remember, Apple has always positioned itself at the higher end of the market, they're not interested in competing with generic brands. If they feel they can provide advantages for their ecosystem with arm, not only in terms of margins, but also in power consumption as a real world advantage for their users, then it is up to Apple to weigh. But, the point is that Apple certainly has that option.
Then why bother having this thread?
What point in speculating when literally everything about this issue is "up to Apple."?
Why bother defending your opinion on the matter when at the end of the day " thats for Apple to decide, not you even though you're not deciding and youre just speculating"?
Because, Apple has done this architecture switch before, and it did catch many people off-guard. With regards to all the complaints, if some organizations invested so heavily and optimized their software for x86 using assembly code and assume that their software will continue to run on macs forever, that is their fault, because Apple has never guaranteed legacy compatibility, and in fact has broken it at various times. That is a far cry from the Windows world.
The past and the present are a little different worlds. Especially considering how long ago the switch to x86 for Apple was, that history isnt really anything more than "it's possible. They have done it before under DIFFERENT circumstances."
Just because someone has done something before, doesn't mean it makes sense for them to do it at any time; especially a time where both ecosystems are very important and where Apple computers are pretty much the only computers out there that can natively run both OSes easily without having to make a hackintosh.
I stand by my statement. Not saying it'll be the make or break point in the decision, but if they switch they WILL lose customers. I know of atleast several.
The switch was in 2006, which is not that long ago. With regards to running 'multiple OSes', that's just a feature of having an intel processor, but that's not the reason why Apple switched to intel, Apple switched as a result of intel have a lower performance per watt vs. Powerpc, and now ARM has a lower performance per watt vs. Intel.
As for apple 'losing customers', they also lost some customers by killing the xserve and the old mac pro model, however, apple does not focus on absolute volume, but rather margins, and quite frankly those other 2 products were not making enough margins for them.
That's just wrong. Apple switched, because PowerPC development had lost momentum and neither Motorola nor IBM were willing to put a lot of R&D $$ into the desktop class chips that Apple needed. PowerPC was a dead end, Apple basically had to leave to stay competitive with PC vendors and there was a value proposition for Apple customers: better performing chips plus the possibility of running Windows in a VM.Apple switched as a result of intel have a lower performance per watt vs. Powerpc.
What if........Apple went fully ARM, but did it using Apple designed ARM cores + licensed AMD on die graphics? What if Apple was to buy AMD? OMG WHAT IF..........
People saying Apple may abandon PowerPC in their Mac had been going on for years.
And then they did it. It caught everyone including me by surprise, but not the tech writers who predicted it. In fact, it even caught IBM by surprise. All of a sudden, Jobs simply stopped taking IBM's calls.
---
Personally I don't think there will be a big push from Intel to ARM any time soon for the Macs, but as mentioned I won't rule out the possibility of a low end Mac tablet/laptop hybrid with ARM, esp. since that's a product that I'd actually consider buying myself.
The switch was in 2006, which is not that long ago. With regards to running 'multiple OSes', that's just a feature of having an intel processor, but that's not the reason why Apple switched to intel, Apple switched as a result of intel have a lower performance per watt vs. Powerpc, and now ARM has a lower performance per watt vs. Intel.
As for apple 'losing customers', they also lost some customers by killing the xserve and the old mac pro model, however, apple does not focus on absolute volume, but rather margins, and quite frankly those other 2 products were not making enough margins for them.
As mentioned several times already, the product I've been talking about is a new iPad - a 12" iPad Pro hybrid.The reason why this may occur with the mac mini but not the macbooks is that 80% of the intel products are now mac laptops and airs. 20% is mac mini, imac, and mac pros. You do not mess with this 80% market unless you have a transition plan and for that you need to give devs months warning.
2006 was almost a decade ago. It certainly doesn't feel like it (and it certainly makes me feel less young), but that's a very significant chunk of time.
I agree that running both OSes was a trait of having an Intel chip. However not just anything with an Intel chip could run the Mac OS. Actually, most hadware outside of a Mac can't run the OS without having to go through the sometimes lengthy, frustrating and potentially unreliable process of making a hackintosh. Something many folk would rather not do.
Again, not saying it's make or break, but being able to run both OSes with little trouble is actually a big selling point. Or, atleast it is with the people I associate with, then again I go to college where a lot of people love having more than one option in things, not just limited to OSes.
They'll lose a large chunk of customers. Sure, margins matter but you need customers too. Thats a big part of the reason I dont think Apple will make the switch.
That's just wrong. Apple switched, because PowerPC development had lost momentum and neither Motorola nor IBM were willing to put a lot of R&D $$ into the desktop class chips that Apple needed. PowerPC was a dead end, Apple basically had to leave to stay competitive with PC vendors and there was a value proposition for Apple customers: better performing chips plus the possibility of running Windows in a VM.
As far as switching to ARM, that would be a rather stupid suggestion. They'd lose the "need to run Windows from time to time" customers and they'd force everybody else to buy new ARM versions of their software and the transition period would be messy for all parties involved.
Besides: the customer value proposition wouldn't be there at all. If Dell can make a notebook roughly the size of the Air 11, a screen the size of the Air 13"s screen and a resolution higher than the RMBP 15 + touch functionality on top that runs 11 hours on a single battery charge (15 hours for the FHD version) then I'm pretty sure Apple should be able to do the same.
Using that as a baseline, where's the value in getting another 2 hours of battery life? That thing already lasts quite a bit longer than a full work day. Why would I want to give up software compatibility (which is genuinely useful) for another 2 or 3 hours of battery life?