News With Its Silicon Transition Complete, Apple Seems to Have New Confidence in its Macs

[Admin]

Apple has completed its transition away from Intel. Now, it's in full control of its computer lineup.

With Its Silicon Transition Complete, Apple Seems to Have New Confidence in its Macs : Read more

 

[bit_user]

Two key oversights, here:

1. The new Mac Pro really falls short on max memory capacity and will surely lose on some benchmarks vs. 56-core and 64+-core Xeon W and Threadripper Pro workstations. It's basically just a Mac Studio in a big case, with a PCIe switch. They really fell short of a full Mac Pro replacement, in this generation.
2. Apple's cloud surely runs on mostly 3rd party CPUs & servers.

This makes declarations of "Mission Accomplished" feel a bit premature.

They could solve both problems by developing their own server CPU. Amazon, Google, and MS all have gone down that road, even for just their own internal cloud hosting purposes. Therefore, it seems quite plausible, if Apple can take care of both the above gaps, that they would do the same.

 

[atomicWAR]

Two key oversights, here:

1. The new Mac Pro really falls short on max memory capacity and will surely lose on some benchmarks vs. 56-core and 64+-core Xeon W and Threadripper Pro workstations. It's basically just a Mac Studio in a big case, with a PCIe switch. They really fell short of a full Mac Pro replacement, in this generation.
2. Apple's cloud surely runs on mostly 3rd party CPUs & servers.

This makes declarations of "Mission Accomplished" feel a bit premature.

They could solve both problems by developing their own server CPU. Amazon, Google, and MS all have gone down that road, even for just their own internal cloud hosting purposes. Therefore, it seems quite plausible, if Apple can take care of both the above gaps, that they would do the same.

Apple really needs to allow for dimms on their high end computers IMHO. We get its cheaper to solder everything on and close your hardware but there are users where memory capacity/upgradiblity will be make or break on their purchases. So for sure your totally on point with memory falling short and likely losing to 56 and 64 core workstations with larger memory allotments.

 

[Geef]

Just looking at the top line:

With Its Silicon Transition Complete, Apple Seems to Have New Confidence in its Macs​

Then glancing at the picture made me think of them doing something like having confidence a MAC tower case can survive a dump in a swimming pool. Look at the pic again and tell me that water outside doesn't look like a swimming pool at a glance.

 

[freedomfries]

Apple has completed its transition away from Intel. Now, it's in full control of its computer lineup.

With Its Silicon Transition Complete, Apple Seems to Have New Confidence in its Macs : Read more

Apple has been excelling at building great consumer devices, but has a terrible track record in the professional tool arena for the past twenty years, and I don't see this changing for several reasons:

-COST: While the PRO hardware is superb indeed, it costs a lot more than comparable platforms running Linux/Windows. Especially when you factor in the cost of keeping hardware up to date, and innovation cycles. Businesses are a lot more cost conscious than household consumers for tech stuff because they are running a business. No need to explain this.

-Software: I work in visual effects for film and TV. We arguably have some of the highest demands in terms of computing power. Also, we use a very diverse tool set. There are simply too many applications that do not perform well enough (for various reasons), or at all, on Mac OS. Because of this, and the cost of Apple hardware, the vast majority of studios run Windows/NIX platforms and use workstations that constantly get upgraded. Apple has made many attempts to make inroads in this industry, with a track record of failure to gain a foot hold. They bought Shake, the premium compositing software at the time, and attempted to draw people to buy Mac hardware in order to run Shake by doubling the license price of other platforms. This resulted in Shake being abandoned and paved the way for Nuke to gain supremacy. Shake development died off within a couple years. Then they bought Final Cut Pro, the gold standard of video editing platforms that nearly EVERYONE used. Today, Avid and Premiere hold the market. Apple effectively sank the most popular video editing tool in the world.

Apple's sandbox business model, where they want to control the software, hardware and all peripherals, creates huge lags in development cycles. They always manage to release a new Mac that seems to be superior to PC's for about 6months, and then PC's catch up and these expensive Macs are behind the curve for a couple years, until Apple refreshes the lineup. That's been the current track record. Now if this were to change, who knows. As it stands, businesses who need to watch their margins will probably look elsewhere, and this will leave PC's with the market lion's share.

The day of the Mac being the supreme multimedia creation platform are over. And that puts the viability of Mac Pro hardware in question. PC's have an embarrassment of choices for hardware and software better tailored to individual needs than you can find in the Apple world. GPU's are an essential part of the equation for high end workstations today. I'm not going to spend a premium for a mac "versioned" GPU built by a third party when I can get the same tool for less running Windows or Linux. Having a slick iPhone or tablet at home is one thing, but I really don't care what my workstation looks like. It's a tool and as long as it does the job well and doesn't cost me a fortune, that's all I ask for.

And for print work, or Audio work, a simple desktop PC can handle all this with ease these days. You can get Pro Tools on Windows just as well. Macs were popular when all that auxiliary hardware was clearly better on Mac OS, and easier to configure, but this is a thing of the past. Today, Mac Pros are beautiful, expensive beasts that do not bring much of a business proposition to the table. Apple would need to match its pricing to that of PC's in order to gain market share.

 

[bit_user]

I work in visual effects for film and TV.

Cool. I've been out of that industry for 2+ decades, but it was nice to hear your take. I left around the time when Avid was transitioning from Mac to Windows NT. I used to work with some ex-Avid employees who told me about when Apple first approached them and convinced them to release Avid on Mac (prior to that, they were developing it for some workstation...).

Anyway, thanks for taking the time to write all of that.

 

[crimsonfilms]

Then they bought Final Cut Pro, the gold standard of video editing platforms that nearly EVERYONE used. Today, Avid and Premiere hold the market. Apple effectively sank the most popular video editing tool in the world.

Correction. Final Cut was designed by Macromedia (the people that invented Flash). Before it was publicly released it was bought and explicitly designed for Mac. It was not the Gold Standard for editing. That was Avid. Long story short, Avid was always Mac but hardware design choices by Apple forced the company to make a Windows version. Which pissed off Steve Jobs. Final Cut was their answer - Mac only editing software.
Apple made Final Cut to was the most popular editing software. FCP 7 was the peak. FCP X turned off many existing users that migrated back to Avid or now use Adobe Premiere.

In FX, yes, Windows and Linux are very popular. Mac reigns supreme in the creative nonlinear editing for TV and film - at least in Hollywood, NY, Atlanta, Canada, London, etc. And lot of independent film makers.

 

[Sippincider]

Without Intel, Apple has control of its own destiny. What will it do?

Hopefully not repeat PowerPC!

And for God's sake keep the desktop line current. The M1 iMac needed a bump a while ago, and the Mac Pro had better get regular updates now.

 

[TEAMSWITCHER]

Apple has been excelling at building great consumer devices, but has a terrible track record in the professional tool arena for the past twenty years, and I don't see this changing for several reasons:

-COST: While the PRO hardware is superb indeed, it cots a lot more than comparable platforms running Linux/Windows. Especially when you factor in the cost of keeping hardware up to date, and innovation cycles. Businesses are a lot more cost conscious than household consumers for tech stuff because they are running a business. No need to explain this.

-Software: I work in visual effects for film and TV. We arguably have some of the highest demands in terms of computing power. Also, we use a very diverse tool set. There are simply too many applications that do not perform well enough (for various reasons), or at all, on Mac OS. Because of this, and the cost of Apple hardware, the vast majority of studios run Windows/NIX platforms and use workstations that constantly get upgraded. Apple has made many attempts to make inroads in this industry, with a track record of failure to gain a foot hold. They bought Shake, the premium compositing software at the time, and attempted to draw people to buy Mac hardware in order to run Shake by doubling the license price of other platforms. This resulted in Shake being abandoned and paved the way for Nuke to gain supremacy. Shake development died off within a couple years. Then they bought Final Cut Pro, the gold standard of video editing platforms that nearly EVERYONE used. Today, Avid and Premiere hold the market. Apple effectively sank the most popular video editing tool in the world.

Apple's sandbox business model, where they want to control the software, hardware and all peripherals, creates huge lags in development cycles. They always manage to release a new Mac that seems to be superior to PC's for about 6months, and then PC's catch up and these expensive Macs are behind the curve for a couple years, until Apple refreshes the lineup. That's been the current track record. Now if this were to change, who knows. As it stands, businesses who need to watch their margins will probably look elsewhere, and this will leave PC's with the market lion's share.

The day of the Mac being the supreme multimedia creation platform are over. And that puts the viability of Mac Pro hardware in question. PC's have an embarrassment of choices for hardware and software better tailored to individual needs than you can find in the Apple world. GPU's are an essential part of the equation for high end workstations today. I'm not going to spend a premium for a mac "versioned" GPU built by a third party when I can get the same tool for less running Windows or Linux. Having a slick iPhone or tablet at home is one thing, but I really don't care what my workstation looks like. It's a tool and as long as it does the job well and doesn't cost me a fortune, that's all I ask for.

And for print work, or Audio work, a simple desktop PC can handle all this with ease these days. You can get Pro Tools on Windows just as well. Macs were popular when all that auxiliary hardware was clearly better on Mac OS, and easier to configure, but this is a thing of the past. Today, Mac Pros are beautiful, expensive beasts that do not bring much of a business proposition to the table. Apple would need to match its pricing to that of PC's in order to gain market share.

Visual Effects for Film and TV is such a frick'n niche market. Apple was smart to abandon that for the consumer market which is back to their roots. Here in America you can go onto any college campus and the dominant laptop computer .. by a wide margin .. is the Mac. Add that to the fact that PC's have ZERO footprint in the smart phone market .. you begin to see just how smart Apple was to kick you to the curb.... You were holding Apple back...

 

[kdw75]

I notice how Steve Jobs is adamant about making it easy for the user to upgrade components in the Mac Pro as he shows of the easy open side. I am glad to see that Apple prioritizes that.

 

[UWguy]

Hopefully not repeat PowerPC!

And for God's sake keep the desktop line current. The M1 iMac needed a bump a while ago, and the Mac Pro had better get regular updates now.

You took the words right out of my mouth - Power PC 2.0

The Mac Pro is just such a niche product. PCs simply offer way more power, flexibility, and upgradability for far less cost. With the rapid evolution of hardware why (unless there is a very specific application) would somebody spend bouco dinero on something that is literally no longer top tier in 6 months? Does apple even make a profit on these? (not that it really matters I suppose)

 

[bit_user]

Hopefully not repeat PowerPC!

I wasn't worried about this, because Apple is now designing their own CPUs and not beholden to anyone else... but then it occurred to me that ARM could do something nasty with future architectural licenses. At worst, it would probably be some royalty levied on each CPU sold, but I wonder if they might ever do anything bad enough to push Apple into the RISC-V camp.

 

[bit_user]

I notice how Steve Jobs is adamant about making it easy for the user to upgrade components in the Mac Pro as he shows of the easy open side. I am glad to see that Apple prioritizes that.

Have fun trying to upgrade the RAM in your new Mac Pro.

Also, the only GPUs or other PCIe cards you'll be installing in it are the ones which Apple allows in its ecosystem.

Sure, maybe you get to pick which SSD and HDDs you use. Enjoy that last shred of freedom.

 

[bit_user]

The Mac Pro is just such a niche product. PCs simply offer way more power, flexibility, and upgradability for far less cost. With the rapid evolution of hardware why (unless there is a very specific application) would somebody spend bouco dinero on something that is literally no longer top tier in 6 months? Does apple even make a profit on these? (not that it really matters I suppose)

I'll tell you two reasons why reasonable people buy Macs:

1. Efficient performance. Apple is the leader in energy-efficiency. So, if you want a powerful laptop with good battery life, or a fast desktop mini PC that doesn't churn out lots of heat or noise, they're the best option.
2. iOS app development. Apple forces you to use a Mac, if you want to develop apps for their devices.

The main reasons I stay away from them:

1. Closed ecosystem. I like freedom.
2. Lack of upgradability.
3. Cost.

A long time ago, I briefly flirted with the idea of getting a Mac, but it occurred to me that it would be no more useful to me than Linux and have all the downsides I listed above.

 

[newtechldtech]

I'll tell you two reasons why reasonable people buy Macs:

1. Efficient performance. Apple is the leader in energy-efficiency. So, if you want a powerful laptop with good battery life, or a fast desktop mini PC that doesn't churn out lots of heat or noise, they're the best option.
2. iOS app development. Apple forces you to use a Mac, if you want to develop apps for their devices.

The main reasons I stay away from them:

1. Closed ecosystem. I like freedom.
2. Lack of upgradability.
3. Cost.

A long time ago, I briefly flirted with the idea of getting a Mac, but it occurred to me that it would be no more useful to me than Linux and have all the downsides I listed above.

While I agree with you when it comes to Apple Desktop machines , I totally disagree when it comes to their laptops ... nothing can compete against them. and it is wrong to compare then against cheap notebooks , try comparing them against HP Zbooks , for the buld quality and choose similar screen and you will find the prices similar.

What Apple can do for taking the midrange priced market is releasing Plastic body laptops with normal screens but I doubt they will do that because it will ruin their reputation.

I do agree however that their RAM and SSD upgrade prices are overpriced ... which is not justified at all.

 

[JamesJones44]

iOS app development. Apple forces you to use a Mac, if you want to develop apps for their devices.

I would argue it's almost better for all software development, especially if you target linux/docker/kubernetes. It's easier to use than your typical Linux distro and the UI is way better than any of the Linux distros I've ever used. With many frameworks you can target native AOT builds for Windows/Mac/Linux using Mac. Though many frameworks have started adding that ability to their Windows frameworks (Rust, .NET and Kotlin Native are ones I can think of).

All that said, you can accomplish most of those things with WSL2, but then you have to deal with Windows and its oddities (every OS has them). It really comes down to work preference and development targets.

Gaming obviously is Windows unless you want to deal with bad ports or wonky sub systems like Wine.

 

[bit_user]

It's easier to use than your typical Linux distro and the UI is way better than any of the Linux distros I've ever used.

I respect your opinion, but I've been using a finely-tuned editor/windowing setup for Linux development for over 20 years. I much prefer it to any IDEs, and I say that after about 5 years of experience with MS Visual Studio and also seeing the IDEs some of my peers use.

I'm familiar with most aspects of linux system administration, also. It's no trouble for me. Learning MacOS and fighting with secret, undocumented, or proprietary BS is quite simply something for which I have very little tolerance. I remember when I moved from Windows to Linux and the sense of openness came as quite a shock. It was like: "hey, this OS isn't trying to hide anything from me!"

What's cool is that using SBCs like a Raspberry Pi just seem like "yet another Linux PC", from a usage & admin perspective. I immediately took to them like a fish to water.

All that said, you can accomplish most of those things with WSL2, but then you have to deal with Windows and its oddities (every OS has them).

When I have to use Windows, I always install Cygwin-X. I have yet to dabble with WSL2, but I probably will at some point.

Gaming obviously is Windows unless you want to deal with bad ports or wonky sub systems like Wine.

Through the mid-2000's, Windows was the go-to OS for multimedia playback. It had the best codecs, players, hardware support, and viewing experience. It was the last thing I did which really was better on Windows.

For quite a while now, Linux has been a very viable alternative for that. My streaming box, connected to my TV, runs Linux. All the proprietary streaming services I've tried support Chromium on Linux.

 

[JamesJones44]

I'm familiar with most aspects of linux system administration, also. It's no trouble for me. Learning MacOS and fighting with secret, undocumented, or proprietary BS is quite simply something for which I have very little tolerance. I remember when I moved from Windows to Linux and the sense of openness came as quite a shock. It was like: "hey, this OS isn't trying to hide anything from me!"

Don't get me wrong, I like Linux a lot too. What you can do in macOS you can do in Linux (unlike Windows). I just prefer the UI flow of macOS. Command line wise, bash, sh, zsh is bash, sh, zsh, 90% of the commands are the same between the two.

I do agree though their are some proprietary oddities you have to deal with at times. For example the macOS Keychain is very different than certificate/key storage on Linux and not well documented from an API point of view. If you have to do something complex with it you have to hope an Apple dev has comment on an Apple form about it once before.

 

[1_rick]

I wasn't worried about this, because Apple is now designing their own CPUs and not beholden to anyone else... but then it occurred to me that ARM could do something nasty with future architectural licenses. At worst, it would probably be some royalty levied on each CPU sold, but I wonder if they might ever do anything bad enough to push Apple into the RISC-V camp.

Apple has a perpetual license to the (IIRC) Armv8 architecture, so ARM can't do that.

 

[bit_user]

Apple has a perpetual license to the (IIRC) Armv8 architecture, so ARM can't do that.

First, I think Apple doesn't want to be perpetually stuck on ARMv8-A. There are features (especially security-focused and SVE2) that Apple will want in ARMv9-A, and I'm sure their license doesn't allow them to modify the v8 ISA with nonstandard instructions as a substitute.

Second, I can't imagine it's truly "perpetual". At most, it's like 10 or I think I heard about someone having a 20 years license (not sure from when, but probably around the time v8 launched, in 2011 or so).

However, if you have any sources on the matter, please share.

 

[1_rick]

First, I think Apple doesn't want to be perpetually stuck on ARMv8-A. There are features (especially security-focused and SVE2) that Apple will want in ARMv9-A, and I'm sure their license doesn't allow them to modify the v8 ISA with nonstandard instructions as a substitute.

Second, I can't imagine it's truly "perpetual". At most, it's like 10 or I think I heard about someone having a 20 years license (not sure from when, but probably around the time v8 launched, in 2011 or so).

However, if you have any sources on the matter, please share.

Don't know if you know this, but Apple was one of the founders of Arm (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arm_(company)) "The company was founded in November 1990 as Advanced RISC Machines Ltd and structured as a joint venture between Acorn Computers, Apple, and VLSI Technology. Acorn provided 12 employees, VLSI provided tools, Apple provided $3 million investment.[20][21] Larry Tesler, Apple VP was a key person and the first CEO at the joint venture."

Arm offers multiple licenses. Apple has a so-called architectural one (https://www.macworld.com/article/67...o-apple-silicon-and-apples-arm-mac-plans.html, https://appleinsider.com/articles/0...nger_apple_as_long_term_architecture_licensee), which means they licensed the ISA, but they are allowed to make changes to it--this, apparently, is one of the things Arm is going to stop doing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARM_architecture_family says that the M2 is based on ARMv8.6-A (the A7 was the first ARMv8 Apple chip).

https://www.anandtech.com/show/7112/the-arm-diaries-part-1-how-arms-business-model-works/3 says "Perpetual multi-use licenses are more common in larger companies. These allow the licensee to use a core in any number of devices, indefinitely. As some ARM licensees can keep the same core in use for 10 - 20 years (particularly in industrial applications), the perpetual multi-use license gets a fair bit of use. [...] Finally at the top of the pyramid is an ARM architecture license. Marvell, Apple and Qualcomm are some examples of the 15 companies that have this license." right under a picture of a pyramid showing perpetual, subscription, and architectural licenses at the top three layers of the pyramid. This suggests that architectural licenses are perpetual but doesn't say it outright. Also, it turns out that the architectural license doesn't give you a stock core like the A72, but a spec. You, the licensee, then have to design your own core, probably with help from Arm, and pass a set of validation tests.

Also, since Apple's one of Arm's founders, Arm's not likely to try to shiv Apple by cutting them off in the future. By the same token, it seems unlikely that Arm will refuse to license v9 to Apple, if and when it wants to move there.

Finally, I can't find anywhere definitive that Apple has a "forever" license, probably because the agreement is private, but as I said above, there is a "perpetual" license class.

To address your point about "not wanting to be stuck on V8 forever", sure, although see my quote of Anandtech's "in use for 10-20 years" and note we're only halfway through 20 years with the release of the A7 (ignoring the time it takes to design and manufacture a chip before it's released).

 

[bit_user]

Don't know if you know this, but Apple was one of the founders of Arm (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arm_(company)) "The company was founded in November 1990 as Advanced RISC Machines Ltd and structured as a joint venture between Acorn Computers, Apple, and VLSI Technology. Acorn provided 12 employees, VLSI provided tools, Apple provided $3 million investment.[20][21] Larry Tesler, Apple VP was a key person and the first CEO at the joint venture."

That doesn't mean anything, here. As long as Apple isn't a majority shareholder, it can't dictate to ARM what to do.

Arm offers multiple licenses. Apple has a so-called architectural one (https://www.macworld.com/article/67...o-apple-silicon-and-apples-arm-mac-plans.html, https://appleinsider.com/articles/0...nger_apple_as_long_term_architecture_licensee), which means they licensed the ISA, but they are allowed to make changes to it--this, apparently, is one of the things Arm is going to stop doing.

An architectural license means that Apple is allowed to design its own chips which implement the AArch64 ISA. It does not let them add their own instructions or make other changes or extensions to the specification.

ARM is very picky about this, because they're keen to avoid any fragmentation of their ecosystem and have unnecessary forks of toolchains & libraries and portability barriers between implementations.

This suggests that architectural licenses are perpetual but doesn't say it outright.

There's a time limit to everything, in business. BTW, I think it was Nvidia that I heard had re-upped their architectural license (which is ironic, since I think all of their recent products use ARM-designed cores).

Also, since Apple's one of Arm's founders, Arm's not likely to try to shiv Apple by cutting them off in the future. By the same token, it seems unlikely that Arm will refuse to license v9 to Apple, if and when it wants to move there.

No, what ARM is far more concerned about is trying to improve their finances for their IPO. Once that happens, they'll be continually trying to placate investors. Compared to that, any "warm feelings" they might feel towards Apple are nothing.

By contrast, look at the bitter litigation between ARM and Qualcomm - one of ARM's biggest customers!

I said above, there is a "perpetual" license class.

Sounds to me that the perpetual license is just for specific IP, like the A72 cores you mentioned.